Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

Motor Taxation

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I rise to present a Petition against motor taxation by some 5,000 people who live in and around Ilford. The Preamble to the Petition is as follows:

To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of the citizens of Ilford and surrounding areas.

Sheweth that a considerable body of the populace feel that Motor Taxation has risen to an onerous level.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that these taxes be reduced.

And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray…"

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Secrecy

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what further consideration he has given to the setting up of an inquiry to make recommendations for getting rid of unnecessary secrecy.

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. George Thomson): I regret that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General is unwell; I have been asked to reply.
I have nothing at present to add to what my right hon. Friend said in reply to my hon. Friend on 18th February—[Vol. 778, c. 203]—and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) on 20th February—[Vol. 778, c. 763–4].

Mr. Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is some considerable concern in this matter, because in a number of cases secrecy is being used to prevent information from being relayed to this House which should be the property of this House? Will he ensure that this matter proceeds without further delay, because there are circumstances in which decisions can quickly be reached?

Mr. Thomson: I am aware of that concern and I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to what the Prime Minister said on 28th February, when


it was clear that he had a sense of urgency about this matter.

Unified Grading Structure

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what further studies he has initiated in connection with the implementation of the unified grading structure in the Civil Service.

Mr. George Thomson: I have been asked to reply.
Our plans are developing rapidly; but I am afraid I cannot at the moment go beyond what my right hon. Friend said in reply to my hon. Friend's Question on 10th February—[Vol. 777, c. 860–1]—and the Report which has been placed in the Vote Office.

Mr. Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this Question was put down before the publication of this latest Report, which I am sure that the whole House welcomes, and that we look forward to an early implementation on this important matter?

Mr. Thomson: I am obliged to my hon. Friend.

Non-Industrial Civil Servants

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what was the number of non-industrial civil servants, excluding Post Office, per 100 of the working population in the years 1964, 1965 and 1966; and what is the current percentage.

Mr. George Thomson: I have been asked to reply.
1·6 at 1st July, 1964, 1965 and 1966 respectively and about 1·8 at the present time.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is it the Government's policy that this should remain a stable figure, or do they intend to allow it to increase?

Mr. Thomson: The Prime Minister recently made clear the Government's policy on this matter.

Civil Service College

Mr. Emery: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what steps have been taken towards the formation of a Civil

Service College; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. George Thomson: I have been asked to reply.
Advertisements inviting applications for the post of Principal of the College appeared last week and, if the person appointed can take up his duties by the beginning of 1970, it should be possible to set up the College in September, 1970. As the hon. Gentleman will know, Sunningdale Park is to be one of the centres of the College.

Mr. Emery: I welcome that announcement, which I feel has been stimulated by my Question. In the working of this College, is it hoped to have direct connections with universities, for example, Oxford or London, and, if so, will an announcement be made about that?

Mr. Thomson: On this matter, the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friends who are responsible are marching forward together at a reasonable pace. It is very much in mind that the questions related to the siting of the centres of the College should be closely linked with university centres.

Professional Management Qualifications

Mr. Emery: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what steps have been taken in the last two years to encourage and to allow civil servants to obtain specific professional management qualifications; and how many members of the Civil Service have attended functional or professional management courses not run or sponsored by the Civil Service.

Mr. George Thomson: I have been asked to reply.
In August, 1967, we increased the help available to civil servants who study externally for recognised educational or professional qualifications in a wide range of subjects, including management. 5,714 civil servants from home Departments, excluding the Post Office, attended such courses in the two training years 1st August, 1966, to 31st July, 1968.

Mr. Emery: Do the appropriate Departments consult professional management organisations to see whether some of the courses which are run could be specifically tailored to deal with some of


the specialist needs of the Civil Service and, in that way, be able to get a better co-operation from the professional management organisations as well as getting better use for the Civil Service?

Mr. Thomson: If the hon. Gentleman has any specific suggestions in this field, in which I know he is expertly involved, I am sure that my right hon. Friend would wish to hear them. He should feel reassured by the figures that I have announced, because the overall 5,700 represents a rise from 2,500 in the first training year to 3,200 in the second.

Mr. Anderson: Will the courses to which the civil servants now go be to some extent replaced by courses at the Civil Service College? Before sanctioning any particular management courses at the college, would my right hon. Friend try to ensure that they do not duplicate existing facilities in other institutions of higher education?

Mr. Thomson: I think that the best thing I can do is to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Departmental Staff (Central Control)

Mr. David Howell: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what steps he is taking to reduce the amount of central control by his Department over Departmental staff matters from the levels previously adhered to by the Treasury.

Mr. George Thomson: I have been asked to reply.
The degree of central control to be exercised over Departments, which are of course the actual employers of staff, is being worked out as part of the development of management in the Civil Service, following the Fulton Report which recommended more central activity in some respects and more delegation in others.

Mr. Howell: I recognise that a great deal of work is being done here, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that excessive central control of manpower and posting works against the principle of accountable management which Fulton urged, and does he recognise that some downgrading of the traditional degree of central staff control will be necessary?

Mr. Thomson: Yes, Sir. I think that the Paymaster-General is very much aware of the real problem here, and the need for balancing the maximum amount of delegation with the requisite amount of central control which, in a number of aspects of this problem, is very necessary.

Research Establishments (Cost Control)

Mr. David Howell: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what proposals he has received for the application of improved cost control techniques to research establishments in the Civil Service.

Mr. George Thomson: I have been asked to reply.
Departments responsible for research establishments are concerned to improve cost control and have evolved improved techniques in recent years. These vary because of differences in the fields covered, but information is exchanged. The Management Accounting Unit of the Treasury reported last year on the scope for using costing techniques in research councils establishments.

Mr. Howell: But would the right hon. Gentleman accept that this is a very large area of public expenditure in which there is a good deal of concern about the blurring of responsibilities and confusion over who is in charge of these research projects and research expenditure? Will he see that the division of the Civil Service Department concerned with cost control applies its attention to this area of Government spending as soon as possible?

Mr. Thomson: Yes, Sir.

Superannuation Scheme

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will reduce the qualifying period during which, if men leave the Civil Service, they forfeit all entitlement to pension.

Mr. George Thomson: I have been asked to reply.
This will be considered during the review of the Civil Service superannuation scheme in the light of the proposals for


a new State earnings-related scheme and of the recommendations of the Fulton Committee.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Do the Government accept the principle that a pension is a form of deferred pay?

Mr. Thomson: I should not like to launch myself on declarations of principle in my present rôle at the Dispatch Box. The Government's position is that these matters cannot be decided piecemeal. They are very well aware of the seriousness of the question.

Mr. Dobson: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to tell the Paymaster-General that many Members on this side of the House will be greatly disappointed if the informal discussions now proceeding on superannuation for the Civil Service do not include a very large measure of transferability of Civil Service pensions?

Mr. Thomson: As my hon. Friend will know, this all comes into the larger matters raised by the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, a principal feature of which is transferability of pensions.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will amend the terms of the Civil Service pension scheme to permit men under 50 years of age who leave to take up employment outside the categories now approved for pensions transfer, to retain their full pension rights including the entitlement to a lump sum.

Mr. George Thomson: I have been asked to reply.
I would refer the hon. Member to the reply of my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General to his Question of 10th February, 1969.—[Vol. 777, c. 864.]

Sir B. Rhys Williams: If the Government acknowledge that this is an urgent problem, will they undertake to do something before 1972?

Mr. Thomson: I should not like to make commitments about the timetable. We recognise that it is an important problem, but equally it would not be helpful to deal with this and other problems connected with it on a piecemeal basis. It

is important to carry through a comprehensive reorganisation of the pensions system of this country.

Sir E. Boyle: Did not the Fulton Committee lay special stress on the problem of civil servants who have given perfectly worthy service but may have run out of steam for one reason or other? Does he agree that this matter should receive pretty urgent consideration?

Mr. Thomson: We are aware of the importance the Fulton Committee laid on this question. I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Industrial Civil Servants (Women)

Sir R. Russell: asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many women are employed in Government Departments as industrial civil servants, full time and part time, respectively; and what is his estimate of the total cost of increasing their pay to the rates paid to men doing similar work.

Mr. George Thomson: I have been asked to reply.
A total of 24,857 full time and 12,185 part time. The answer to the second part of the Question is—about £2 million.

Sir R. Russell: As the principle of equal pay for equal work has been accepted by all parties in the House, is not it time that the Government set an example by granting it to their industrial civil servants?

Mr. Thomson: The Government's policy on the principle of equal pay for equal work is well known, but it would not be possible for them to deal with the aspect raised by the hon. Gentleman in isolation from the phased implementation of equal pay in industry generally.

Coloured Staff

Mr. Onslow: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what official statistics are maintained of the number of coloured staff employed in the Home Civil Service.

Mr. George Thomson: I have been asked to reply.
No official statistics are maintained, but Departments are able to make a rough estimate of the number they employ.

Mr. Onslow: How, then, was it possible for last September's issue of the Civil Service magazine Red Tape to quote a figure?

Mr. Thomson: I would require to look into that, but I suspect that it probably related to a rough estimate given to the House a short time before that, when a figure of 16,400 was given in answer to a Question.

Sir E. Boyle: Is not there a strong case for maintaining these statistics, without prejudice to the question of how or in what form they should be published?

Mr. Thomson: That is an important question, and I think that we should have a further look at the way in which such statistics should be collected. We have that rough estimate dating back to last summer. If the right hon. Gentleman would like, I will try to make more recent figures available in correspondence with him.

Non-Industrial Civil Service (Cost)

Mr. Onslow: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what is the current average annual cost to the Exchequer of a member of the Non-industrial Civil Service, taking all overheads into account; and what it was in October, 1964.

Mr. George Thomson: I have been asked to reply.
Figures previously given to the hon. Member were £1,295 in April, 1964, and £1,535 in July, 1967. Calculated on the same basis, the current figure would be £1,756.

Mr. Onslow: Has the Minister done the necessary arithmetic to tell us what the total additional annual cost is?

Mr. Thomson: Yes, Sir. On the figures I have just given, the increase is £221. The main reason is the pay increases over the 1967 figure.

Staff Development and Training

Mr. Moonman: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will give details of the guidance he is giving to departments in staff development and training until such time as the Civil Service College is available.

Mr. George Thomson: I have been asked to reply.
We shall be more than doubling the number of student course weeks in the next 18 months, and discussions will shortly take place with departments about the development of their own training in the light of the increased central facilities.
The Civil Service Department is examining in conjunction with other departments how they can most effectively increase the already considerable effort devoted to staff development.

Mr. Moonman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that statement. As we shall have to wait until September, 1970, for the inauguration of the Civil Service College, would he not give further stimulus to the use of management training and the appraisal techniques which are very much in evidence in British industry and no doubt would be of great help?

Mr. Thomson: Pending the establishment of the Civil Service Staff College, my right hon. Friends are giving the maximum stimulus to these forms of training. For example, in the present training year, which runs from August of last year to July of the current year, we are providing about 1,200 student course weeks of management training. In the coming training year, beginning in August of this year, we hope to provide over 3,000.

Information Officers

Sir T. Beamish: asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many public relations and Press officers, on the criteria laid down in reply to a Question on 7th March, 1966, were employed in each Government department, shown separately, including the Post Office, at the latest available date; and what are the comparable figures for the same date in the previous four years and for 31st October, 1964.

Mr. George Thomson: I have been asked to reply.
I will, with permission, circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir T. Beamish: Since the total cost of employing something like 120 more P.R.O.s than any previous Government must be well over £500,000 a year, how does the right hon. Gentleman justify this,


bearing in mind the fact that it seems that the more P.R.O.S the Government employ, the more unpopular they become?

Mr. Thomson: Apart from the party political points, I think that it is generally accepted by responsible people in this country that one of the problems of our increasingly complex society is that of communication. These information

INFORMATION OFFICERS AND EQUIVALENTS IN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS'
INFORMATION BRANCHES


Department

31st October, 1964
1st March, 1965
1st March, 1966
1st March, 1967
1st March, 1968
1st March, 1969


Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

12
12
12
12
14
14


Cabinet Office (CSO)
…
—
—
—
—
—
1


Cabinet Office (Paymaster General's Office)
…
—
—
—
—
—
2


Civil Service Department
…
—
—
—
—
—
12


Civil Service Commission
…
—
—
—
3
4


Customs and Excise
…
1
1
1
1
1
1


Decimal Currency Board
…
—
—
—
—
1
6


Defence
…
76
85
92
95
96
99


Economic Affairs
…
—
9
11
11½
11
10


Education and Science
…
9
10
14
16
20½
21


Employment and Productivity
…
8
8
8
10
12
15


Export Credits Guarantee Department
…
2
2
2
2
2
2


Foreign and Commonwealth Office:
…
—
—
—
—
—
12


*Foreign Office
…
10
10
10
10
10
—


Commonwealth Relations


Office
…
7
7
—
—
—
—


Colonial Office
…
5
5
—
—
—
—


Commonwealth Office
…
—
—
8
10
8½
—


Forestry Commission
…
1
1
1
l
1
2


Health
…
8
8
9
11
10
9


Social Security
…
4
4
4
4
4
5


Home Office
…
10
10
11½
11½
14
15


Housing and Local Government

8
9
8
11
14
13


Land and Natural Resources
…
2
2
3


Central Office of Information†
…
15
15
17
18
18
17


Inland Revenue
…
1
1
1
1
1
1


Land Commission
…
—
—
—
—
1
2


National Savings Committee
…
5
5
5
5
5
5


National Savings Committee for Scotland
…
1
1
1
1
2
2


Overseas Development
…
4
6
9
10
11
11


Post Office
…
51
51
55
65
81
98


Power
…
2
2
2
3
3
4


Privy Council Office
…
—
—
—
1
1
—


Public Building and Works
…
10
12
11
14
14
15


Scottish Home and Health Department
…
14
14
15
15
16
16


Technology
…
43½
45
4645
42
42


Board of Trade
…
31
32
34
38
41
42


Transport
…
17
17
17
18
23
28


Treasury and sub-Departments
…
15
11
14
15
17
6


Welsh Office
…
—
—
4
4
5
6




372½
395
425½
462
504
534


* These are the numbers of staff in the Press Offices in the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office. the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office, and in the
Information Branch of the Colonial Office.


† There is no Information Branch as such in the Central Office of
Informaton; the numbers shown are staff on comparable duties.

officers are designed to keep the channels of communication between the Government and the citizen flowing freely.

The following is the information:
The numbers of information officers and equivalents in Government Departments' Information Branches were as below, on the dates shown. The duties of information officers are wider than those of public relations officers and Press officers which are not Civil Service grades.

Accountants

Mr. Richard Wainwright: asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether the Civil Service admits for consideration applications in answer to Government advertisements for qualified accountants, which are submitted by accountants authorised on an individual basis by the Board of Trade in respect of the Companies Acts.

Mr. George Thomson: I have been asked to reply.
No, Sir. Applicants for professional accountants posts in the Civil Service must normally be chartered or certified accountants.

Mr. Wainwright: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, in a period of acute nation-wide shortage of experienced accountants, this small body of experienced people to which my Question refers might have a contribution to make?

Mr. Thomson: I think that there are discussions taking place at the moment between this body and my right hon. Friends. I think that we ought to leave it at that for the moment.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many known members of the following professional bodies are at present employed in the Civil Service, namely, the Institutes of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, of Scotland, and of Ireland, taken together, the Association of Certified and Corporate Accountants, and the Institute of Cost and Works Accountants, respectively.

Mr. George Thomson: I have been asked to reply.
Very approximately, 300, 160 and 130.

Mr. Wainwright: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a very small proportion of the total number of civil servants engaged in accountancy work at relatively high levels and that, in an era when the Government are in constant dialogue with industry, there would be great advantages if a number of accountants on either side came from the same disciplines and were able to speak to each other in roughly the same language?

Mr. Thomson: There is a great deal in what the hon. Gentleman says, but future policy of recruitment and deployment of accountants must be considered in the light of the recommendations of the Fulton Report and the outcome of the present proposals for a merger of the bodies concerned.

Mr. Molloy: While we acknowledge the problems facing people in the professional grades of the Civil Service, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a need to encourage junior grades in terms of the avenues of promotion open to them and their prospects of achieving a reasonably high status within the Service?

Mr. Thomson: Yes, Sir, but that is a wider question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PAYMASTER-GENERAL

Devolution

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Paymaster-General (1) whether she has now initiated a study of the problems of devolution;
(2) if she will now make a statement on her recent consultations on the subject of devolution.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Paymaster-General what progress she has made in her study of devolution.

Mr. George Thomson: I have been asked to reply.
The consultations my right hon. Friend has are informal, since she believes this to be most useful at present. She is always glad to consider any requests for discussions. A statement, however, would not be appropriate. Her consideration of the various aspects of devolution is proceeding, assisted by the increasingly realistic contributions which are now being made to the public discussion of this issue.

Mr. Campbell: I am sorry that the Paymaster-General is ill, and hope that she will soon recover and be with us again. Can the Minister state whether the right hon. Lady has taken any action yet in this area of her responsibilities as described by the Prime Minister. In particular, can he tell us if it is true that she has accepted an invitation to dine with the 1320 Club?

Mr. Thomson: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his first remarks about my right hon. Friend. I would require notice of his final Question. My right hon. Friend, with her customary energy, has been applying her mind to these problems and engaging in informal discussions which have been useful. Their usefulness lies in their being informal, and making them formal and publishing lists would not help.

Mr. Taylor: Will the Minister make a direct contribution to devolution by encouraging the further devolution of the Civil Service? Has he seen the recent Report of the Scottish Council, which expressed concern at the accelerating stampede of offices and decision-making down south from Scotland? Have the Government any steps in mind to reverse this trend?

Mr. Thomson: I have seen the Report to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to his remarks.

Mr. Dalyell: If serious consideration is to be given to this subject, has not it to be done informally at this stage?

Mr. Thomson: I entirely agree. If one is to make serious progress in the task assigned to my right hon. Friend it is better to proceed in the way she suggests.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Suez Canal

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in view of the new situation which now exists in the Middle East, whether he is satisfied that Egypt now accepts the international status of the Suez Canal under the 1888 Convention; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): In a declaration dated the 24th of April, 1957, the Egyptian Government reaffirmed that they would continue to respect observe and implement the terms and the spirit of the Constantinople Convention of 1888. I believe that the

United Arab Republic Government stand by this declaration.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is it not true that, in recent years, by their actions they have shown that they do not stand by this declaration? If one is talking, as we are today, about adherence to the resolution of the United Nations, is it not a good idea to go back to the first ones?

Mr. Roberts: It is a question of ability as well as of intention. My understanding is that the U.A.R. Government intend that the provisions of the Convention shall be observed. I would suggest that this, like other important aspects of a general settlement in the Middle East, could well be an important subject for discussion in the current talks in New York among the four permanent members.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does it follow from that that Egypt accepts responsibility for the safety of British ships detained in the Bitter Lakes?

Mr. Roberts: I have said that they accept the Convention of 1888. From my own observation when visiting the area, certainly they have co-operated very fully in maintaining and helping our ships in the Great Bitter Lake.

Mr. Shinwell: Why does my hon. Friend assert and emphasise that Egypt respects the Convention of 1888, when she has disregarded it on every possible occasion?

Mr. Roberts: I do not think that it is quite as simple as that. We must remember that the Canal is in the middle between two opposing armies. It is a matter of practical difficulty on both sides as to how the Canal is to be released for free navigation. It will be a major aim of the present discussions, which we all hope will be fruitful, to attain this among other aspects of the United Nations Resolution.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest negotiations over the ships trapped in the Suez Canal.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Discussions are proceeding but at the moment I have


nothing to add to the reply which I gave on 17th February.—[Vol. 778, c. 27–9.]

Mr. Dalyell: What representations have been made for the safety of the ships?

Mr. Roberts: The safety of the ships is not in question. As I said earlier, there has been complete co-operation by the U.A.R. authorities and all concerned, and our consular representatives are constantly in touch with the crews. There is no anxiety for their safety and, from day to day, we are checking on the position.

Viscount Lambton: What is the position over the insurance of these ships?

Mr. Roberts: I think that all the ships except two are insured or reinsured to some extent on the British market. I cannot at the moment go into detail, but if the noble Lord would put down a Question, I should like to help.

Mr. Sandys: Is it not a fact that the presence of Israeli forces in the east bank does not prevent the clearance of the Canal or the release of the ships; and that the Egyptian Government are refusing to do so only on grounds of prestige?

Mr. Roberts: I do not accept that statement. This is a very delicate position but, as of now, I would say that both sides have been co-operative—[Interruption.] Well, co-operative towards the approaches made for the release of these ships. I hope that nothing will be said here that might complicate the negotiations now going on between the shipowners' committee, the U.A.R. Government and others, because, at the moment, there is hope that the survey for the southern exit will begin soon.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not because the Government have remained silent for too long that Egypt has been getting away with it? Will my right hon. Friend be kind enough to define specifically what he means by "complete co-operation"?

Mr. Roberts: I have said that at the moment there is very full cooperation by both sides towards the attempts being made to release these ships from the Great Bitter Lake. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is stopping them?"] What is stopping them is the situation in

the area, which is one in which two opposing armies face each other across the canal. Progress has been made and is being made, and I am hopeful that fairly soon we may see the survey of the southern exit put in hand.

Mr. Wood: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much more co-operative the two sides will have to be to get the ships out?

Mr. Roberts: If the two sides maintain their present attitude towards the request of the shipowners' committee, I would say that the ships will be released.

European Economic Community

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further consideration he has given to proposals for bilateral tariff reductions between the European Economic Community and countries applying for membership.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) on 18th February [Vol. 778, c. 207–13] and to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said in reply to the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) on 10th February [Vol. 777, c. 876–7].

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, outside his Department, the fact that a proposal emanated from France would not be regarded as a sufficient reason in itself for its rejection? Can he say what there is incompatible about proposals for tariff cutting with our bid for full membership of the European Community?

Mr. Stewart: No one would be so foolish as to regard the fact that a proposal emanated from France as an objection to it. There is not necessarily anything incompatible between our desire to enter the European Economic Community and bilateral reductions but, as has been explained in the House, any proposal of this kind would from our point of view need to be clearly linked with our entry into the Community

Mr. Luard: Would my right hon. Friend agree that, provided an arrangement of this kind could be made compatible with our obligations to G.A.T.T. an approach of this sort would be consistent with his own efforts to increase cooperation with the members of the Six in every possible way, pending our full membership of the Common Market?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. We have stated that we would certainly look at any proposals of this kind which came from the Six as a whole and which were clearly intended as a prelude to our entry to the Community and not as a substitute for it

Mr. Heath: Have the Government done a detailed study of particular tariff reductions between the Community and ourselves which would benefit this country, in view of the fact that, under the most-favoured nation clause of G.A.T.T., they would have to be extended to other countries without reciprocal arrangements? Can he tell us the result of any study, if it has been done?

Mr. Stewart: There has been a study of this, but we are left with the position that, if we were to accept the idea of bilateral tariff reductions between countries in the Market and countries outside which were not linked to our entry to the European Economic Community, this would mean that we should have to take on some of the difficulties and problems of entry without securing the advantages.

Mr. Heath: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that is why I asked if a study had been made of those cases in which it would be to our advantage to have such multilateral or bilateral reductions. Surely it has always been our policy that, where a bilateral reduction was of value to this country, we should go for it whatever it was. Why should this be excluded from the Common Market?

Mr. Stewart: This would not apply to bilateral reductions simply between countries in the Common Market and applicants. It would be part of the general process of attempting to get reductions in tariffs.

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on

the latest situation in Great Britain's attempts to join the Common Market.

Mr. M. Stewart: I have nothing to add to the reply my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts) on 6th March.—[Vol. 779, c. 665–72.]

Mr. Marten: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that some of us on this side of the House are genuinely concerned to see the unity of the Continent of Europe and many of us believe that our continued application to join the Common Market is, rightly or wrongly, a divisive force in progress of the Common Market? Is it not, therefore, time we were a little less selfish and withdrew our application for the time being?

Mr. Stewart: I think we are all concerned about the future of Europe, but I cannot accept that withdrawal of our application would be helpful, particularly in view of the strong support of our application by five of the six members of the Community.

Mr. Heffer: In view of the fact that it is quite clear, or should be, to most hon. Members, that the future of Britain lies precisely in Europe, and that the main obstacle to our entry to the European Economic Community is the Head of the French Government, will not my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister reconsider the view that they have been developing lately and have further talks with General de Gaulle at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Stewart: We have already made it clear that we are ready to have talks with the French Government.

British Embassy, Bonn (Personnel)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total number of personnel attached to the British Embassy in Bonn.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: There are 118 United Kingdom-based and 164 locally-engaged staff.

Mr. Dalyell: What on earth do all these people find to do?

Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend asked for the total number of personnel attached to the British Embassy in Bonn; I think that I have answered his Question.

Foreign Ministers (Four-Power Meeting)

Mr. Luard: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had on the proposals of the United Nations Secretary-General for a meeting between the Foreign Ministers of the United States, the Soviet Union, France and Great Britain.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: My right hon. Friend discussed this with U Thant on 1st February. We believe that U Thant's proposal deserves sympathetic and constructive attention. However, the desirability and timing of such a meeting may well depend on progress in the projected discussions on the Middle East between the representatives to the United Nations of the Four Powers.

Mr. Luard: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there would be great advantage not only in having a meeting of this kind simply to carry forward discussions on the Middle East but in having a regular series of consultations between Foreign Ministers of the kind that used to take place in the years immediately after the war?

Mr. Roberts: This, I believe, is what U Thant had in mind, and in his discussions with my right hon. Friend the possibility of such a series of meetings was discussed.

Falkland Islands

Mr. Luard: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will resume discussions with the Argentine Government on the question of the Falkland Islands.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: There have already been further exchanges of views with the Argentine authorities, and I expect these to continue.

Mr. Luard: Given the fact that it has always been made clear that there could be no transfer of sovereignty against the wishes of the inhabitants, is not the re-

sumption of these discussions very much in the interests not only of this country in order to improve our relations with Latin America generally, but also in the interests of the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands?

Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend has put very cogently and succinctly what my right hon. Friend has put very clearly in the House.

Mr. Braine: Since the wishes of the Falkland Islanders to remain British are well known and accepted by everyone, can the Minister give the House an assurance that the question of sovereignty will not be discussed in any resumption of talks?

Mr. Roberts: It would be impossible to avoid having the question of sovereignty raised by the Argentinians—this is their point of dispute—but my right hon. Friend made it very clear in his statement to the House that if that question is raised, our basic and firm position is that no transfer is possible against the wishes of the islanders.

President de Gaulle and British Ambassador

Mr. Henig: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether it was with his approval that Her Majesty's Ambassador sought a meeting with President de Gaulle on 4th February, 1969;
(2) if he will arrange a meeting with the Foreign Secretary of France.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies, apart from other Western European Union members, were informed about the conversation between General de Gaulle and the British Ambassador; and on what date or dates this was done.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now place in the Library copies of Her Majesty's Ambassador's record of his conversation with General de Gaulle on 4th February, of the version of this record which was communicated by Her Majesty's Government to other Governments, and of the


commentary upon it which was transmitted to such Governments at the same time.

Mr. M. Stewart: These matters were thoroughly discussed in this House on 24th and 25th February, and again on 4th and 6th of March, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister replied to Questions about this. I have nothing to add.—[Vol. 778, c. 1088–1107, 1337–48;Vol. 779, c. 214–18, 665–72.]

Mr. Henig: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a mystery about why the British Ambassador was placed in an absurd position by being sent to General de Gaulle to have an offer indicated in detail, when the outline of what the President would suggest was well known in advance? Is it not the case that the British Government had done no contingency planning for dealing with the Ambassador's report and, therefore, placed themselves in an embarrassing position?

Mr. Stewart: If my hon. Friend will forgive my saying so, I do not think that what he says makes sense at all. It is part of an Ambassador's normal duties to discuss matters of common concern with the Head of the Government to which he is accredited. One could not reasonably assume that one would know in advance of a conversation what would be said in it, and there was no embarrassing position.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny reports that France is to continue to boycott the Council of Ministers of the W.E.U.?

Mr. Stewart: I am not in a position to confirm or deny that at present.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In view of the breaches of confidentiality which have already occurred, and in view of the suggestion that the Foreign Office has intentionally distorted the record in order to create mischief between France and her neighbours, would it not be as well if the record were published?

Mr. Stewart: As I said previously, that would be a most unusual step to take, and it would be justified only if the accuracy of the record were seriously challenged. I think that the only person to challenge it now is the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. William Price: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that some of us think that the matter was handled beautifully, on the basis that an occasional kick in the teeth might do de Gaulle good?

Mr. Stewart: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I must say that we must try to avoid that kind of presentation. I believed then, and I have believed firmly since, that the line taken by Her Majesty's Government was correct.

Dr. Eduardo Mondlane

Mr. Brooks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what official protest he has received from the Portuguese Government regarding the entry into Great Britain in 1968 of Dr. Eduardo Mondlane.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Shortly before Dr. Mondlane was due to visit this country in March, 1968, the Portuguese Ambassador called on the Permanent Under-Secretary of the Foreign Office to express the hope that Dr. Mondlane would be prevented from coming here. The Permanent Under-Secretary explained our laws and traditions affecting foreign visitors who are opposed to the policies of Governments with which we maintain friendly relations.

Mr. Brooks: Everyone in the House will welcome the British Government's reiteration of civilised principles in this matter, but is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a persistent rumour that the tender put in by the British-led consortium for the huge Cabora Bassa dam in Mozambique was turned down because of political and not commercial motives? Will my right hon. Friend either deny or confirm this rumour, if he is able to do so?

Mr. Roberts: I could not accept that statement. I have no evidence that this was so.

Singapore (Duncan Committee)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Common wealth Affairs why the business community in Singapore was not given the opportunity to represent its views in private to the Duncan Committee when it visited Singapore.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs informed the hon. Gentleman on 10th February, representatives of the business community met members of the Committee at the High Commissioner's house. On that occasion, those who wished to do so were able to speak privately to the visitors.—[Vol. 777, c. 197–8.]

Mr. Biggs-Davison: If that is so, how is it that there is this feeling in Singapore that the committee dealt in generalities, and that there were not adequate working sessions for practical discussions?

Mr. Roberts: With respect, that is not the information I have. I am informed that the meeting with the representatives of the British business community which preceded the lunch—time was set apart from lunch for this discussion—brought out a number of very useful and constructive ideas about further improving the co-operative efforts between the business community in Singapore and Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service.

Berlin (Four Power Agreements)

Mr. Brooks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of those occasions since 194? on which the Four Power Agreements relating to the administration of Berlin have been breached; and on how many of these occasions have official protests been made by one or more of the Four Powers concerned.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: It would not be possible to provide information about all the occasions since 1945 without a disproportionate amount of research and expense. With permission, I will therefore arrange to have a list of the protests against infringements of the quadripartite status of Berlin since the beginning of 1966 circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Brooks: Would my hon. Friend indicate what is the balance of protest between the two sides? Secondly, in view of the behaviour of the East German Government and East German troops during the Czech crisis of last summer, will my hon. Friend indicate what protection exists for members of the United Nations, including Czechoslovakia, Britain, France

and the United States, against provocative action take by East German troops?

Mr. Roberts: On the second point, the protection is what is laid down, partly by the Four Power Agreement on Berlin, and partly by other international instruments. On my hon. Friend's first point, I think there were three protests by the United States, this country and France for every two by the Soviet Union.

Following is the list:

PROTESTS BY THE UNITED KINGDOM, UNITED STATES AND FRANCE


Date
Circumstances


1st May, 1966
May Day military parades in East Berlin.


13th August, 1966
Anniversary of the building of the Berlin Wall.


1st December, 1966
French protest after one of their patrols had had tear gas thrown at it by East German Border guards.


30th January, 1967
Shooting incidents at the Wall.


1st May, 1967
May Day military parade in East Berlin.


29th October, 1967
Military parade in East Berlin.


19th April, 1968
East German decree restricting access to Berlin for certain categories of Federal German officials.


28th April, 1968
Herr Schütz, the Governing Mayor of West Berlin, was turned back on autobahn.


3rd July, 1968
Travel restrictions.


13th August, 1968
Anniversary of the building of the Berlin Wall.


31st August, 1968
Allied officers prevented from entering East Berlin.


21st November, 1968
East German military parade in East Berlin.


25th February, 1969
East German military participation in laying a wreath at Soviet war memorial.


2nd March, 1969
East German military activities in East Berlin.


5th March, 1969
Access restrictions at the time of Bundesversammlung.

European Economic Community and European Free Trade Association

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now initiate a conference involving jointly the European Economic Community and the European Free Trade Association countries.

Mr. M. Stewart: No, Sir. Such a conference would need to have a clear purpose, and be one which would produce results. I am not aware of any widespread support for such a conference at the present time.

Mr. Molloy: Would my right hon. Friend agree that to equate the term "Common Market" with Europe is mischievous and most misleading and also that the successive abortive efforts to join the Common Market have proved economically damaging and politically embarrassing? Ought we not now to give a lead for a much broader concept of Europe, which would include the E.F.T.A. countries and perhaps ultimately lead to a rapprochement with Eastern Europe?

Mr. Stewart: Of course the terms "Common Market" and "Europe" are not synonymous, but our application is viewed with favour by our friends in E.F.T.A. and regarded as a pioneering step for application by other countries. When I have spoken on this subject in the past, I have always made clear that we must not lose sight of the important task of getting a better understanding with Eastern Europe.

Mr. Wood: Before any steps are taken for such a conference, is the right hon.

Gentleman taking steps to clear up the row which has broken out between Britain and other countries about imports of fish?

Mr. Stewart: The question of imports of fish goes rather wide of this Question, but as I said, we are not proposing to call such a conference at present.

United Nations (Apartheid and South-West Africa)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what committees and other bodies within, or associated with, the United Nations are concerned, on a continuing basis, with the questions of apartheid and of South-West Africa; what are their functions; what progress they have made in their work; and what is the cost to United Kingdom public funds.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: As the Answer is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it not a pity that the list is rather long? Have these bodies or this expenditure achieved anything? Have they affected South African policy in any way? How does Article 2(7) of the Charter stand in relation to them?

Mr. Roberts: I think they are very much in conformity with Article 2(7). On the first point made by the hon. Member, we believe there is a duty for the U.N. to keep this issue, which disturbs the conscience of the world, before the eyes of the world. It is not easy to calculate the British contribution to this particular exercise, as I think the hon. Member will agree. I have attempted such a calculation. Apart from our contribution to U.N. funds generally which finance this kind of operation, we have made a substantial contribution to the United Nations education and training programme for Southern Africa.

Mr. Hooley: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is the full intention of the United Kingdom to co-operate in every possible way with United Nations agencies on this issue of the investigaation and exposure of apartheid?

Mr. Roberts: I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall do everything that


we can to co-operate in any practical policy to oppose apartheid.

Following is the Answer:
The three bodies concerned exclusively with apartheid or South West Africa are:
1. The U.N. Special Committee on the Policies of Apartheid of the Government of the Republic of South Africa.
Established in 1962 by General Asssembly Resolution 1761:

"(a) to keep the racial policies of the Government of South Africa under review when the Assembly is not in session;
(b) to report either to the Assembly or to the Security Council or to both, as may be appropriate from time to time."

These terms of reference have been expanded by subsequent resolutions but remain essentially the same. The Committee reports annually to the General Asssembly and makes recommendations as to the action which the Assembly should take under the apartheid agenda item.
2. The Unit on Apartheid
Set up within the U.N. Secretariat by General Assembly Resolution 2144A of October, 1966 largely to assist the activities of the Apartheid Committee.
3. The U.N. Council for Namibia
Established as the Council for South West Africa by General Assembly Resolution 2248 in May, 1967; its name was changed in June. 1967 by General Assembly Resolution 2372. Its functions as set out in these two resolutions are broadly: "to administer South West Africa until independence" and "as a matter of priority" to undertake certain planning measures and to organise training for South West Africans. Resolution 2248 also provided for a United Nations Commissioner for South West Africa (now for Namibia) to whom the Council could entrust executive and administrative tasks. The post is at present filled on an acting basis by the Legal Counsel of the United Nations.
In addition, Southern African issues now fill much of the debates of United Nations bodies dealing with Human Rights. They are also frequently before the General Assembly and occasionally the Security Council and other United Nations bodies.
The three bodies exclusively dealing with apartheid and South West Africa have produced extensive reports which have led to several United Nations resolutions but progress in practical terms is severely limited because the attitudes of the United Nations majority on the one hand and the Government of South Africa on the other have proved completely incompatible. The creation of the United Nations Trust Fund for South Africa, which is concerned with providing assistance to victims of apartheid and their dependents, and of the United Nations Education and Training Programme for Southern Africa, which provides training for Africans who have fled from South Africa. South West Africa. the Portuguese African Territories and Rhodesia, are the prime examples of the

realistic and practical measures taken by the United Nations as a result of recommendations by these and associated bodies.
The United Kingdom makes no direct contribution to the cost of the three bodies mentioned above, which are financed out of the United Nations budget. As a proportion of our share of the United Nations budget, the indirect cost to the United Kingdom in 1969 of the Special Committee on Apartheid and the Namibia Council and Commissioner is estimated to be about £18,000. It is possible that the effort devoted to Southern African questions by United Nations bodies in the Human Rights field will cost as much again or more. No estimate is available for other costs. Finally, in 1968–69 Her Majesty's Government contributed £41,667 to the United Nations Education and Training Programme for Southern Africa.

Arab States (Security Council Resolution)

Sir T. Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Arab States have indicated their support for the Security Council Resolution of 22nd November, 1967, sponsored by the United Kingdom; what progress has been made towards is implementation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: The Governments of the United Arab Republic, Jordan and the Lebanon are among those who have stated that they accept the resolution.
Dr. Jarring has now begun another round of consultations with the parties and the four Permanent Members of the Security Council are continuing their bilateral discussions in New York. I hope that these will soon lead to four-Power discussions.

Sir T. Beamish: Does the Minister agree that the longer negotiations are put off the more difficult they may prove? Why in those circumstances is there apparently no sense of urgency whatever on the part of Her Majesty's Government to press forward with the implementation of the British-sponsored resolution?

Mr. Roberts: I take the hon. and gallant Member's point about there being a sense of urgency here. I think it is shared pretty generally. There is a great deal of caution and apprehension about moving in this matter and a great deal


of bilateral discussion is going on to prepare the ground for an effective four-Power discussion.

Sir B. Janner: Although the three Arab nations have stated that they are prepared to accept this resolution, is it not a fact that in all their statements they still declare that they are at war with Israel, and is not their acceptance subject to their having in mind the fact that certain steps will be taken which will allow them to do what they have done in the past and commit breaches of any other undertakings they have entered into?

Mr. Roberts: The whole purpose of the present negotiations and our efforts over the past 18 months is to effect a general solution which will make the conditions my hon. Friend has described impossible in future. I think there is some hope, now that both sides have accepted the resolution as a proper basis for a solution, that the four Powers may proceed to a composite discussion.

B.B.C. (Hebrew Service)

Mr. Arnold Shaw: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Common wealth Affairs in what ways public funds saved by the discontinuation of the Hebrew Service to Israel are being redeployed.

Mr. M. Stewart: Most of the savings will be use on better premises for the British Council in Israel, additional library staff, more English teaching, and more professional and academic exchanges. The remaining savings are being spent on B.B.C. material in Hebrew for broadcasting in Israel.

Mr. Shaw: I welcome that statement, but would my right hon. Friend regard this as being of equal value to the previous value we received from broadcasts in Hebrew?

Mr. Stewart: Yes Sir. Further than that, I believe that by this change we shall get better value for the money spent.

Nigeria

Mr. Moonman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further inquiries he has

made of the Nigerian Government concerning the bombing of civilians in Biafra.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I would refer my hon. Friend to what was said in the House on 13th March by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.—[Vol. 779, c. 1573–5, 1684–5.]

Mr. Moonman: Bearing in mind the sentiments expressed in that debate, may I ask my right hon. Friend to convey to the Prime Minister our opinion that, when preparing for his talks with the Nigerian Government at the end of the month, this question of the bombing of hospitals and schools and damaging, indeed killing, civilians is very much central to putting the matter right?

Mr. Roberts: Certainly.

Mr. A. Royle: What is the point of the Prime Minister's visit? Will he be visiting Biafra?

Mr. Roberts: I could not answer the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but there certainly is a point in my right hon. Friend's visiting this tragic land and doing what he can to bring about peace in this area. My right hon. Friend did not have the opportunity of meeting General Gowon during the Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference. Some consideration has been given to the question that he might see him as soon as possible. This would seem to my right hon. Friend to be both a suitable and, one would hope, a fruitful opportunity.

Arab Leaders (Discussions)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the substance of his recent discussions with leaders of Arab States; and what conclusions were reached.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: My right hon. Friend's only recent discussions with Arab leaders have been those with Dr. Mahmoud Fawzi, Special Assistant on Foreign Affairs to the President of the United Arab Republic. The substance of these discussions is of course confidential.

Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand that complete secrecy is to prevail and


that the House is not to be informed about what is happening behind the scenes? Did it occur to my right hon. Friend—I am addressing my right hon. Friend now, not my hon. Friend—that in these discussions he might have suggested that the only possible approach to a solution of the Middle East problem is for both sides to meet across the table and negotiate and that he ought to suggest to the four Powers that, instead of seeking to impose conditions on the contending parties, they should initiate an attempt to bring pressure to bear on the contending parties to meet across the table?

Mr. Roberts: I am quite sure that the four-Power discussions will have very much in mind the latter part of my right hon. Friend's supplementary question. By the way, when he addressed me as his right hon. Friend I can assure him that as regards both the adjective and the noun he was quite correct. As to his first point, I suggest to him, as probably the most experienced Member of the House and a former Cabinet Minister of great distinction, that he quite understands that such discussions must be confidential.

Viscount Lambton: Was it stressed in these discussions with Dr. Fawzi that the British Government still believed that the Suez Canal should be open without discrimination to ships of all nations?

Mr. Roberts: Yes, indeed.

Mr. Mendelson: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the efforts of the Government in trying to get the four major Powers to help in the opening of negotiations between the parties involved are well understood and that there is confidence that the Government will ensure that the security of all States in the Middle East is fully safeguarded?

Nigeria (Seaman Safranov)

Mr. Ian Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communication was made to the British High Commission in Lagos by the Master of the "Tweedbank"; whether a specific request for political asylum was made to the High Commissioner by Seaman Safronov; and what advice was given by the High Commission to the master of the "Tweedbank".

Mr. M. Stewart: The Master of the "Tweedbank" informed the British High Commission that a young seaman from a Russian warship was on board. A representative of the British High Commission went on board the "Tweedbank" to advise the master and was present when Safranov was interviewed by the Nigerian authorities.
No specific request for political asylum was made to the High Commissioner. Safranov did, however, indicate by drawing a Union Jack that he wished to come to Britain.
The British High Commission advised the Master of the "Tweedbank" that local law applied in Nigerian internal waters and that he should accede to the Nigerian police request to take charge of Safranov.

Mr. Lloyd: In view of the rather complicated law which seems to surround such situations, have the masters of British vessels generally been advised by the Foreign Office on what their powers are?

Mr. Stewart: I think it is well understood that when a ship is, as this one was, in the internal waters of any country the law of that country applies.

Mr. Whitaker: Are the Government satisfied that Mr. Safranov returned to the Russians of his own free will? Will my right hon. Friend convey to the master of the "Tweedbank" our appreciation of his efforts to maintain the tradition of British freedom of political asylum?

Mr. Stewart: I am sure that we all wish well to the master of the "Tweedbank" for his handling of the matter. I repeat that there was no request for political asylum. I understand that the young man was resentful of the way he was treated by his officers. There is no evidence that he had any political motive. He subsequently told Nigerian police officials that he was willing to go to the Soviet Embassy.

Mr. Heffer: In view of the reply that my right hon. Friend has given on this subject and in view of the reply that he gave me on the question of the "Enugu Palm", will he indicate precisely what powers masters of British ships do have in the port of Lagos?

Mr. Stewart: To obtain an exact answer I think that my hon. Friend would have to table a Question. This could be quite a complicated legal matter. I have answered in so far as it is relevant to this Question, just as I answered my hon. Friend in so far as it was relevant to the point he made.

Sir F. Bennett: I appreciate the legal problems involved, but is not the Secretary of State prevaricating a little about the young man's wishes? If all that he could do was to draw the Union Jack, how could he possibly give specific reasons as to why he wanted to come to this country?

Mr. Stewart: I was careful to say that I understood that the young man was resentful. That is the report we have received.

EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY

Unemployment (Stanley)

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what is the unemployment rate for men at Stanley, County Durham, Employment Exchange.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. E. Fernyhough): At 10th March, 1969 the provisional unemployment rate for males for the Consett, Lanchester and Stanley travel-to-work area was 7·5.

Mr. Watkins: I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer. Can he break the figures down and give me a specific figure, as requested in the Question, for the Stanley Employment Exchange?

Mr. Fernyhough: I cannot give my hon. Friend the percentage rate. I can give him the totals of unemployed, but for travel-to-work areas we do not have a breakdown such as he has requested. I can let him have a breakdown of the registered unemployed without giving a percentage figure.

Top Salaries (Report)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she has now received the report from the National Board for Prices and Incomes on the question of top salaries referred to the Board on 1st

July 1968; when she expects to publish this; and whether she will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Roy Hattersley): My right hon. Friend has now received the report, which will probably be published on 25th March. She will be making a statement in due course.

Mr. Lewis: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May we be assured that the statement my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make, I assume in the House, will not be leaked to the Press before she makes it to the House?

Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend can certainly be assured that the contents of the report will not be leaked either by my right hon. Friend, or by any member of her Department, or by anybody else concerned with them.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Can the hon. Gentleman now tell us whether the 3½ per cent. ceiling will apply to the principle of comparability in this instance?

Mr. Hattersley: If I did, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) would accuse me of leaking the report before it was published.

Arley and Kingsbury Collieries (Redundant Miners)

Mr. Speed: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many miners made redundant by the closure last year of Arley and Kingsbury collieries are still registered unemployed.

Mr. Fernyhough: 249 men from Arley Colliery and 151 men from Kingsbury Colliery are still registered as unemployed. All but a few are aged 55 or over.

Mr. Speed: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he have discussions with the Minister of Power about proposed opencast mines, because if this happens further mines in the vicinity could close, thus increasing unemployment?

Mr. Fernyhough: I will certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Members (Pay and Expenses)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will refer the payment and expenses of Members of the House of Commons to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. Hattersley: No, Sir.

Mr. Lewis: Can my hon. Friend explain why, because it seems that all other people are having their salaries and wages referred at some time or other? Surely this would be a good idea on the part of the Secretary of State, rather than referring the pay of some other groups?

Mr. Hattersley: The reasons why a reference would be inappropriate were outlined in very great detail by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 11th March, and I have nothing to add to what he said then.

Mr. Frederic Harris: When looking into this matter, will the hon. Gentleman knock down for all time the myth that constantly appears in the national Press that Members of Parliament get £1,250 expenses free of tax, because it is quite incorrect and they have to prove their expenses the same as anybody else does?

Mr. Hattersley: Like the hon. Gentleman, I am very anxious that that myth should be knocked down, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question has helped to do that.

Mr. Whitaker: Would not clocking in by hon. Members to show their attendance record be a matter of interest to other employees?

Mr. Hattersley: It might be a matter of interest, but I cannot believe that it would be a very fruitful indication of the industry of individual M.Ps.

Motor Industry Scotland (Disputes)

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many labour disputes occurred in the motor industry in Scotland in 1968; how many man-hours were involved in respect of those on strike and those laid off in conesquence; and what were the comparable figures for 1967, 1966 and 1965, respectively.

Mr. Hattersley: In 1968, there were 17 recorded stoppages arising from disputes resulting in a total loss of 120 thousand man-days or about one million hours at the establishments where the disputes occurred. The breakdown between the 4,700 workers directly involved and the 11,900 consequentially laid off is not available. There were 12 stoppages in 1967, 11 in 1966 and 19 in 1965 resulting respectively in 19, 66 and 52 thousand working days lost.

Mr. Taylor: Are not these figures quite serious? Would the Minister say how they compare with industry generally? In view of the recent reports that expansion of the Scottish motor industry might be affected by our labour record, would he inquire into the reasons for these strikes?

Mr. Hattersley: Of course, these figures are serious. This is a serious position which is representative of the motor industry as a whole, but my right hon. Friend is involved in many processes, not the least of which are the proposals in her White Paper, "In Place of Strife", which she hopes and believes will help to end this situation.

Mr. Orme: Can my hon. Friend give the comparable figures for sickness and injury in this industry over that period?

Mr. Hattersley: I cannot give that comparison, but if my hon. Friend asked me to do so in order to suggest that the strike days lost are unimportant I say this to him: both those causes of days lost are matters which my right hon. Friend must and will try to remedy.

Mr. Scott: Do not the original Answer plus the Ford dispute plus the trade figures last week all underline the need for urgent action? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House will co-operate if he can persuade his right hon. Friend to introduce a Bill this Session to deal with this most serious aspect of the breakdown in industrial relations in this country?

Mr. Hattersley: I think the hon. Gentleman is doing the House and the country a disservice if he implies that the passage of any Bill that my right hon. Friend might construct or that he and his right hon. Friends might construct would immediately bring an end to this serious


problem. What my right hon. Friend believes is that her proposals will attack the causes rather than the symptoms of these difficulties, but that is essentially a long-term rather than a short-term remedy.

ANGUILLA

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Sir J. RODGERS: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent official visit of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to Anguilla.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Private Notice Question. Mr. Peter Walker.

Mr. Henig: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether any request has been received by you, Sir, from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to answer Question No. 44?
May I further ask you how the rights or hon. Members are to be respected when an international crisis of this kind occurs and there is already a Question on the Order Paper thus preventing other hon. Members from taking alternative procedures to raise it if the hon. Member is not present in the House when his Question is called?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot compel an hon. Gentleman to be here to ask a Question, no matter how important it is. I hurried Questions in order to get to Question No. 44, because I feel that the House thought it important, but as the hon. Member was not here I could not call him.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. How is the Government being carried on? If the hon. Member was not here to ask his Question, surely it is in the interests of the Government to make a statement at the first opportunity on this disturbing situation?

Mr. Speaker: It may or may not be in the interests of the Government. That is a matter for the Government, not for the Chair.

Mr. Braine: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that since last Wednesday I have sought

twice to ask a Private Notice Question on this matter—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Parliamentarian. He cannot even breathe to the House the subject of any Private Notice Question which has been refused.

Mr. Braine: Of course, I accept that, Mr. Speaker. But may I ask your guidance here? I am sure that the House would wish this point to be ventilated. We have here an extraordinary and, indeed, unprecedented situation where a Minister of the Crown has been expelled from a Commonwealth territory under duress over the weekend. Four other British subjects have been expelled. There are reports that force may be used and so far, before any final decision or precipitate action is taken, Parliament has been left with a complete lack of knowledge of what is afoot, without any explanation from the Government. May I, through you, invite the Secretary of State to make a statement?

Mr. Speaker: An hon. Member can always invite a Minister to make a statement. That is a matter for the Minister to decide.

Mr. Chapman: rose—

Mr. Biggs-Davison: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can take only one point of order at a time. Mr. Chapman.

Mr. Chapman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that under the reforms made one or two years ago you are authorised to take into account the likelihood of the matter being reached by normal processes in deciding whether to allow a Private Notice Question, and, therefore, you are not bound to refuse a Private Notice Question simply because there is a Question on the Order Paper?
Could you then confirm that it is because you felt the matter was likely to be reached rather than because there is a Question on the Order Paper that you have not so far acceded to the Private Notice Question?

Mr. Speaker: It would be a bad practice if the Chair began to give reasons


why he disallowed Private Notice Questions. The first part of the hon. Gentleman's point of order is a statement of fact.

Mr. Chapman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: In former times the existence of any Question on the Order Paper precluded a Private Notice Question from being asked. That no longer obtains.

Mr. Heath: Further to the point of order. This is obviously a very serious situation. If the Foreign Secretary were to volunteer now to give an answer to the Question on the Order Paper, would you be prepared to allow it, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, it can be answered if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to do so, even though the Question is not asked.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I came here fully prepared to answer Question No. 44 and expected it to be asked; or, to be accurate, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was intending to answer it himself. He is, unfortunately, ill and unable to answer it.
The answer is as follows:
My hon. Friend visited Anguilla on 11th March in order to consult Anguillan opinion on Her Majesty's Government's proposal to establish on the island a British official to be known as Her Majesty's Commissioner. The intention was to restore lawful government in Anguilla which would be acceptable to the Anguillans. He received an enthusiastic response from the majority of the crowd at the airport when he announced the proposal on arrival.
Later, however, a group of armed men demanded his withdrawal from the island, and, after shots had been fired, he decided to withdraw his party in order not to endanger innocent persons.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said last week, I shall be making a statement on Anguilla later this week.

Mr. Braine: Is it not a fact that the Government have been extraordinarily complacent about the dangers in Anguilla

for quite a long time? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Anguillans bitterly resent being placed under St. Kitts' rule? Therefore, should not Government policy be formulated from that very beginning? Can the right hon. Gentleman say what basis there is for the assertion that the island is in the grip of Mafia-like elements? Can he say, further, whether it is intended to use force to bring the island back to the rule of law?

Mr. Stewart: In view of the wish of the House, I endeavoured to be as helpful as I could by answering Question No. 44 out of turn. I have said that I will make a further statement later, and I must ask the House to await that statement.

Mr. Luard: Would my right hon. Friend consider calling a conference of Governments in the Caribbean, the British Government, the St. Kitts Government and representatives of Anguilla to consider this very serious situation? Would he consider some kind of association between Anguilla and the United Nations as one possible element in a solution of this problem?

Mr. Stewart: There are many possibilities here, but I believe that if I start to answer questions of this kind I shall do what I urged the House would not be wise.

Mr. Marten: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether reports that troops are being prepared to go to Anguilla are firm or not?

Mr. Stewart: I have no further comment to make.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Private Notice Question. Mr. Peter Walker.

MORTGAGE INTEREST RATE

Mr. Peter Walker: (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take following the announcement of the Building Societies Association that they are going to increase the mortgage interest rate.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): The Government have considered the decision of the Building Societies Association last Friday to raise their interest rates. The hon.


Gentleman's Question has given me an opportunity to explain the background.
In the last few months rates of interest on other short-term media which compete with building society shares and deposits have substantially increased. This increase reflects not just tighter monetary conditions in this country, but a substantial upward movement of international interest rates, from the effects of which we cannot insulate ourselves.
Representatives of the Building Societies Association came to see me on Thursday, 13th March, when it had become clear that there was a possibility of their deciding the following day to raise the recommended investment and mortgage rates. I reminded them that any decision on rates should be related to their own position and requirements, not just to changes in other rates of interest. They told me that their monthly net intake of funds, which had been falling steadily since November, had declined further in February.
Their experience had been particularly difficult in the second half of the month, and they were concerned lest the trend should deteriorate still further. They stated that if they were not able substantially to improve upon the February figure in the coming months, they would be unable to maintain a satisfactory rate of mortgage lending.
While the decision whether and when to alter the recommended rates is the responsibility of the Council of the Building Societies Association, the Government have to decide whether the increase should be referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes. In view of the considerations I have mentioned, it has been decided not to make a reference. The Association's representatives were able to assure me that societies would be concerned to avoid immediate hardship to existing borrowers, and would be willing wherever possible to extend the period of repayment rather than increase monthly installments.
The Government will carefully watch the position to ensure that the societies lose no opportunity that a general fall of interest rates may present for lowering their own rates. At the proper time the Government will again consider the question of a reference to the Board with a

view to re-examining how far the improvements recommended by the Board two years ago are being carried out and whether the building society movement is sufficiently flexible in its response to the downward movement of rates.

Mr. Walker: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his Answer amounts to saying that the Government intend to take no action whatever to relieve the problem of people with mortgages? Will he confirm that the Government have today announced that the interest rate on money for the local authorities for house purchase loans is to be increased to 9⅛ per cent.? Will he immediately revise the option mortgage scheme, since the failure of that scheme is shown by the fact that 90 per cent. of people with mortgages refuse to take advantage of it?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware than an 80 per cent. mortgage on the average price house now results in payments of £2 10s. a week more than when Labour came into office? In the light of what the Prime Minister said in his election manifesto, at Bradford, at Sittingbourne, at Huyton and at Stevenage, and at a time when—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ask a question."]—at a time when the mort gage interest rate

Hon. Members: Speech.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Both sides must listen to observations with which they do not happen to agree.

Mr. Walker: As the Prime Minister undertook, at a time when the mortgage interest rate was 6 per cent., that he would lower that interest rate, should not the people be allowed to decide on the Prime Minister's deceit over this issue?

Mr. Diamond: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's request for information.
As regards the option mortgage scheme, it is still true that those who pay at the second band, though not at the standard rate of tax, have a continuing advantage as a result of the option mortgage scheme.
As regards the local authority rate, the hon. Gentleman was good enough to confirm what I was saying, that local authority rates, which to a large extent depend on Euro-dollar market rates


which have gone up no less than 2 per cent., have increased and, as a result, as they compete with building society rates, the building societies have to increase their rates to attract funds.
As regards mortgage repayments, the hon. Gentleman asked me to confirm a particular figure, but he did not say what the amount of the mortgage was.

Mr. Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend go back to the Association and invite it to reconsider its decision pending two proposals: first, that societies should henceforth, when granting new mortgages, take out a 10 per cent. equity in the value of the property concerned; and, second, that they should make much better use of their massive reserves, with the Government, perhaps, underwriting investors' funds in some societies?

Mr. Diamond: My hon. Friend's first point raises a matter for the societies which would require very careful thought. Second, my hon. Friend speaks of the societies making better use of their reserves. I do not know whether he was referring to the question of the liquidity ratio, upon which the Prices and Incomes Board and the Hardie Committee commented. Their comment was that they thought that societies were, on average—I repeat "' on average "—carrying too large a liquidity ratio. When one looks into it, one find that the figures vary enormously as between different sizes of society and between different societies in the same size group.

Mr. Murton: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that this is the fourth time that mortgage rates have risen since there has been a Labour Government? As a man now borrowing £5,000 over 25 years must have a minimum salary of £2,000 a year, how can any worker in an industrial job hope ever to achieve home ownership?

Mr. Diamond: The representatives of the societies inform me that there is no difficulty in using their funds, that is to say, there is a queue of borrowers anxious to pay the going rate. The experience of borrowers hitherto has been that the interest which they have paid in full has been more than covered by the increase in the value of their houses.

Mr. Bidwell: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that this alarming increase in mortgage interest rates will cause considerable dismay to large numbers of our Labour supporters, and will he agree that, since the option mortgage scheme has an element of subsidy for the societies in any case, the Government should increase their subsidy, taxing the wealthy to do it?

Mr. Diamond: The Government are not at present of the opinion that there is any call for further subsidisation, but these matters are, naturally, kept under review.

Mr. Sandys: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), about election pledges, and, in particular, say how this squares with the promise given by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) that home loan rates would be reduced to 3 per cent.? Does it not show, once again, that Labour government does not work?

Mr. Diamond: My right hon. Friend has many times denied the accuracy of that reported remark.

Mr. George Brown: I have been waiting for that. May I make clear that, as has been said many times, the Sunday Express made a lie? No such promise, no such announcement, was ever made. While I think that we could have had lower interest rates, the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) must recognise that the policy of his party, equally with the policy of ours, ruled that out.

Mr. Lubbock: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that only a few weeks ago the Minister for Planning and Land was forecasting what he called a crude surplus of 1 million houses over households by 1973? What difference does the right hon. Gentleman estimate that this large increase in the mortgage rate will make to the efforts of private builders up to 1973, and to what extent will it mean that the number of houses falls short of the forecast made?
Further, in view of the grave difficulties under which building societies are


now working, will the Chief Secretary represent to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor that they be relieved of Corporation Tax in the forthcoming Budget?

Mr. Diamond: May I deal, first, with the second part of the question? I will convey the hon. Member's comments to my right hon. Friend. I was asked about the forecast of the housing programme. The fact is that if building societies were not able to attract funds and thereby to lend, there would be a considerable danger that the private sector of the housing programme would not be completed. It is expected that this increase will, broadly, enable that to take place.

Mr. Roebuck: Will my right hon. Friend ignore the partisan irrelevancies from the Conservative Party, which has never been on the side of the owner-occupier, and consider that many people buying homes on mortgage do so as a means of saving for their old age? Will he take that into consideration when he is assisting the Chancellor in framing his Budget so that these people may be encouraged to buy their own homes? In connection with that, will he consider exempting building societies not only from Corporation Tax, but also from Selective Employment Tax?

Mr. Diamond: Again, in a matter of taxation, I will do no more than say that I will pass the suggestion on to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the tragically high figure which Government policy has forced on building societies, may I ask the Chief Secretary whether he is not aware that it is particularly tragic that the Minister of Housing should at this moment have cut savagely the amount of money available to local authorities in London for loans on house purchase? In view of the Government's pledges about helping the home owner, will he not at least reverse that policy?

Mr. Diamond: My right hon. Friend heard attentively what the right hon. Gentleman said. The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, aware that the G.L.C. did not use its quota last year.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is some disappointment that this decision has not

been referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes? Can that policy be reconsidered or will my right hon. Friend at least go more fully into the reasons for not referring the decision to the Board?

Mr. Diamond: Yes, with pleasure. I share my hon. Friend's concern. The reasons are, first, that a reference was made to the Board a little over two years ago when the matter was fully considered by the Board. Secondly, if the decision were referred to the Board, there would be a period during which the Board had to examine the position, and the building societies took the view, which I accepted from them, that during that period there would be considerable anxiety about their intake of funds. Although we are anxious to keep the cost down, we are also anxious that there should be no interference with the programme of house-building.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does the Minister recall the specific pre-election pledge by the Prime Minister that by an intelligent monetary policy Labour would bring mortgages within the reach of young couples living on average incomes? In view of the staggering new figure of mortgage rates and the hardship which will arise from them, will he at least give an assurance that no further burden will be put on societies by way of the Income Tax which they have to pay?

Mr. Diamond: All the evidence which the societies have brought to my attention indicates that young married couples with average incomes are anxious to enter into new mortgages.

Mr. Murray: Will not my right hon. Friend reconsider two points on this issue? One is the possibility of widening the scope of the option mortgage scheme? Secondly, it would help people who have mortgages and who will be hard hit by this increase if he would refer the increase to the National Board for Prices and Incomes, so that all the facts are shown to them.

Mr. Diamond: I bear in mind what my hon. Friend said. He will have heard in my opening answer that a reference to the Board later may become appropriate for the reasons which I gave.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: How can the Government reconcile what the Minister


said today with what the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) is reported in the Press to have said on 26th September, 1964—"What we have in mind is something like 3 per cent."—and with what he said a year later at the Erith by-election—that the Government were bringing in proposals to that effect?

Mr. Diamond: I have answered that question. I have told the House that my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) denies having made that statement—and he has just repeated that denial.

Mr. English: Will my right hon. Friend, at least internally, advise his Department that the time has come to cut the flummery and to understand that we should not rely only on internal interest rates, but that it might be appropriate to allow the £ to float?

Mr. Diamond: That is a very wide question indeed.

Mr. Frederic Harris: As this increase is the natural outcome of the development of Government economic and financial policies over the last few years, how can the Minister say to young people that they can take out mortgages? They are anxious to take them out, but they are physically unable to do so. Does he realise that old people who have mortgages think it a fraud that they should be put in this position?

Mr. Diamond: I have fully answered the first part of the question. I have already stated that there is a queue of young people anxious to borrow the funds. If the funds do not increase, the length of the queue will increase. One has to maintain a reasonable balance in the private housing sector.

Mr. Paget: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while taken in isolation these figures will be intolerable, taken in conjunction with the level of inflation which is running they represent a most attractive rate to borrowers? Will he further agree that maintaining the currency by a rate of interest which makes inflation a social necessity is rather an odd way to run the economy?

Mr. Diamond: It is certainly the case that the rates now being charged by building societies compare favourably

with the rates at which first-class companies have to borrow money for their business purposes. That is a possible comparison.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House. Mr. Marten.

ANGUILLA

Mr. Marten: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
The situation in the Island of Anguilla".
I will be brief, Mr. Speaker. The House is aware that the Island of Anguilla declared U.D.I, in January of this year and that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs—we are sorry to hear that he has been taken ill—visited the island this month, but was forced to depart in the unpleasant circumstances of small arms fire.
That in itself is serious enough, but on the one o'clock news today, a commentator stated that parachute troops were being prepared to go to Anguilla and that a force of police were being prepared to go into Anguilla. The commentator said that he had checked with the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office to see whether that was true and that they had both refused to comment. You yourself, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon heard the Foreign Secretary also refuse to comment when I asked the self-same question.
But whether that is so or not, I regard the situation as sufficiently serious to ask for the Adjournment of the House for a debate. Anguilla is only a small island, but the principles involved are very great. I submit that it is a specific matter in that it affects an island for which Britain has defence responsibilities. It is important, because the sending of troops would raise a grave constitutional issue, particularly for associated status.
The matter is also urgent because if the Government are set on this course the House should certainly debate it at an early opportunity. It may not be the


most convenient moment for the Government, but there are wider issues than the Government's convenience.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) was courteous enough to let me know just before I came into the Chair that he would seek to raise this matter.
The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the situation in the Island of Anguilla.
As the House knows, under new Standing Order No. 9, Mr. Speaker is directed to take into account the several factors set out in that Order but to give no reasons for his decision.
I have given careful consideration to what has happened in the Chamber this afternoon, and to the representations made by the hon. Gentleman, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the revised Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

MORTGAGE INTEREST RATE

Sir C. Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the increase in building societies' rates of interest, due to no fault of their own but to Government actions, affecting every

house buyer in the country in receipt of a mortgage from building societies ".
I apologise for not having given you prior warning, Mr. Speaker, but I did not know what the Answer to the Private Notice Question would be.

Mr. Speaker: I should point out that no hon. Member is compelled to inform Mr. Speaker in advance that he intends to seek an Adjournment debate under Standing Order No. 9, but it is, however, convenient if Mr. Speaker does know in advance. It helps him when he is considering what, after all, is always a very important decision.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the increase in building societies' rates of interest, due to no fault of their own but to Government actions, affecting every house buyer in the country in receipt of a mortgage from building societies".
I have given careful consideration to all that has taken place here this afternoon—to the Minister's statement and to the hon. Gentleman's argument—but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the revised Standing Order and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business, other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Grey.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[12TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

AGRICULTURE, HORTICULTURE AND FORESTRY (TRAINING)

4.3 p.m.

Mr. J. B. Godber: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Industrial Training Levy (Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry) Order 1969 (S.I., 1969, No. 155), dated 10th February 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be annulled.
I apologise in advance if my voice is somewhat less clear than usual. I hope that I shall be able to make myself heard.
This is an unhappy debate for me, because I was responsible for piloting the Industrial Training Act through the House. I am proud of the Act. There are many industries where I want to see its use expanded and increased. For instance, the first task given to any board set up was to concentrate on training the young people coming forward to their first employment in the industry concerned. I have always said that I look on this as only the first task of the boards and that, in due course, those industries which were expanding should undertake the retraining of those coming from other types of work.
I believed in the Act when I introduced it and I believe in it now. But what I have never said or believed is that it should be applicable to every type of industry or to every condition of employment. That is why, when I introduced the Act, I did not seek to get the House to make it mandatory. lit is permissive. That is made clear in Section 1 but there is one part of Section 1 which, of course, is mandatory. This is subsection (4), which the Under-Secretary of State is probably well aware of. It compels the Minister to consult any industry before setting up a board for that industry.
Thus it is clear that, not only is the Act permissive, but that careful attention must be paid to the wishes as well as

to the needs of any industry before a board is established. It is true that, at the start, both sides of the agricultural industry wanted a board. The hon. Gentleman made that clear in the debate we had last year. But if the industry wanted a board, we have no evidence to show that the present Government warned it adequately of the difficulties confronting such a fragmented industry in seeking to operate a board successfully.
While we were still in office, I made no secret of my doubts about the advisability of establishing a board for agriculture. These warnings should most certainly have been given again by our successors. If they were not, the Government cannot escape a major share of the blame for the difficulties which have followed.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Roy Hattersley): I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman so early. I am aware of his responsibility for the Act and of his experience in both training and agriculture. Can he quote the warnings which he gave about the difficulties of setting up a board for agriculture, so that I may examine them before I reply?

Mr. Godber: I gave my warnings in an interview with leaders of the industry when they came to see me about the matter. I have not sought to open the files which contain the records. They are there, as the hon. Gentleman knows. But my warnings were given to these gentlemen when they came to see me and they themselves have acknowledged that there is no question but that they were given.
The point is now that the present Government should certainly have given these warnings I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not merely address himself to what I have said but will tell us what warnings he has given. That is what matters now. The fact is that, under the Conservative Government, a board was not set up, but that under the hon. Gentleman's Government one has been set up. That is the issue which matters and the hon. Gentleman should attend to what he and his right hon. and hon. Friends have said about it.
The Government cannot, therefore, escape a major share of blame for the difficulties which have followed. I accept


the need for adequate training at all levels for those going into agriculture and so, I am certain, does the farming community as a whole. It is not the principle of training to which the farming community is opposed, but the methods, which it thinks wrong and wasteful. When looking at the problem of training in agriculture, four factors taken together seem to put the industry into a category of its own. Two of these factors emphasise the difficulties in the industry and the other two the way in which the objectives of the Act can be achived for the industry in what I believe would be a more sensible way.
The first factor is that, while this is a large industry in total numbers employed, it also has the widest possible geographical spread. There is no question of attempting to concentrate training in one area in this industry as there might be in some others. Secondly, the total number of agricultural manpower is broken down into the smallest possible units. Quite apart from self-employed farmers who employ no labour and do not come under the scheme, a very large percentage employ only one man.
The hon. Gentleman himself made that point on 29th January, 1968, when he pointed out that there were 46,000 establishments with only one employee. It could be higher today. He also made clear that, out of 140,000 establishments, there were at that time 130,000 with fewer than five employees, which meant that only 10,000 establishments had five employees or more. These are staggering figures in relation to any industry for which a training board is set up.
The third factor is that farmers and their workers are already provided, through the farm institutes and day-release courses and county technical colleges, with a more advanced degree of opportunities for training than many other fragmented industries. Fourthly, farmers receive a portion of their incomes direct from the Government. This means that it would be possible to ensure that they paid for training in their industry and thus uphold the main principle of the Industrial Training Act without the need for a levy.
In case anybody suggests that under Conservative policies this would no

longer obtain, because of a change in system, let me say that even under our proposals at least £100 million would remain of Government intervention in agriculture, which is far more than would be needed in this operation. While other industries may have one or two of those criteria, I can think of no other where all four obtain.
The first two emphasise the difficulties facing any board for agriculture and the second two point the way to an alternative. I will come to the alternatives later, but at this point I wish merely to establish the unique nature of the circumstances surrounding agriculture. The first two, the diversification of the industry and the extremely small units involved, stress in extreme form the problems confronting a number of other boards, although in agriculture there are virtually no large units to balance the small.
It is worth noting that in its last annual report, which was published the other day, the Industrial Training Council drew attention to this in paragraph 66, saying:
The place of the small firm under the Act is a problem area of continuing sensitivity. Criticism … pictures the small employer trying to cope with a levy and grant system and an administrative network which he believes to be geared to the big battalions. Some of these complaints may
not be justified but
many undoubtedly do reflect a major problem which must be of concern to the Council and all training boards.
The problem is acknowledged, but it is far more acute in agriculture than in almost any other industry, because in agriculture there are scarcely any large employers. That is the background.
Ever since the Agricultural Training Board was set up, it has been labouring under a difficulty. Some of those difficulties arise from the background which I have described and some from purely external matters which could not have been envisaged, such as the epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease which broke out 18 months ago and which caused the abandonment of many meetings called to explain the provisions of the Board. Some, of course, have been of the Board's own making, but it is not my purpose today to seek to apportion blame, but rather to consider the present state of affairs and whether the Order is likely


to lead to a more satisfactory position. If there is no indication that it will, the House would be acting irresponsibly in allowing it to pass.
A year ago, we were presented with a levy order which was originally for £6 per worker. It was subsequently withdrawn and replaced by an amending order substituting £3 10s. Twelve months later, I am told that 26,500 farmers owe £275,000 of levy which they have refused to pay. The organ of the National Farmers' Union, the British Farmer, on 15th February, after quoting the Parliamentary Secretary saying that the present Order was to be laid, reported him as saying:
At the same time the brake would be taken off the institution of court proceedings to recover levy from 26,500 farmers who had not paid up for 1967–68".
It is not a brake but an accelerator that he requires.
How can any board be made to function effectively when its relations with its members are as bad as these figures disclose? Farmers are normally law-abiding men. They are also keenly interested in training. How else can one explain the revolution in techniques in the industry in the last two decades? How else can anyone explain that, as shown in the National Plan, it has a productivity of 6 per cent. per worker rising more rapidly than in any other major industry? This is not a reluctant industry being forced to do its duty in training, but it wants to see value for its money.
No one could pretend that £3 10s. per worker on its own could cause great hardship to our farmers, but their complaint—and it is this, above all, which has caused them to refuse to pay in such large numbers—is that a high percentage of the levy goes not administration. This arises directly from the fragmented nature of the industry. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us specifically what percentage of the levy goes on administration.
The Central Training Council's latest report refers in paragraph 8 to the problem of administrative costs. It says that about £3¼ million out of a total of more than £130 million represents administration on all the boards put together. After deducting what the Government have pro-

vided the report works that out as less than 2 per cent. of levy income being used on administration. The figure for agriculture, I think the Parliamentary Secretary will find, is not 2 per cent. or 10 per cent. but more than 20 per cent., and that is why so many farmers feel so indignant about it. That is one important reason for their criticism.
Secondly, farmers are well aware of the training facilities which existed before and feel that the Board is in danger of duplicating much of them. There were not only farm institutes, but county technical colleges, day-release courses and various other types of courses for particular purposes. To be fair, the Board claims and I do not question its sincerity and conviction in making the claim, that it is not duplicating and that it is working in close touch with existing establishments. But it has not satisfied the farming community as a whole that the additional facilities which it has provided justify the cost of the organisation which has been set up.
Thus we have this feeling of intense opposition expressed by a mass refusal to pay. In these circumstances, how can the Board carry out its duties effectively and how can the Government justify bringing forward the Order? To be fair, both the Government and the leaders of the industry for some time have recognised the difficulties and, apparently, discussions between them have been going on for some months. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us something about those discussions, because all we know at present is what we have gleaned from the agricultural Press.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman has told farmers that the finance for the Order must be on the same basis as last year and that that is the reason for the Order. But he has also told them, it seems, that in future the Board could be financed through the Price Review. At first, we were told that this would be conditional on its being deducted from each farmer's fertiliser subsidy. A more fatuous or inequitable method it would be difficult to imagine. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us whose proposal this was and whether it is still a serious proposal. If it is a serious proposal, I should like him to explain how he can pretend that it has equity.


Will he relate it, for instance, to the intensive pig and poultry units and say how much fertiliser his Department recommends should be applied to a pig and poultry unit to get the best results? What about the forestry side? The Parliamentary Secretary must think again. I do not propose to dwell on this aspect, because it is so absurd that it ridicules itself.
On 28th February, the Farmers' Weekly quoted the President of the N.F.U. as saying, after inquiring whether there was an ultimatum from the Parliamentary Secretary—and we should like some information about that:
If we do not like the fertiliser subsidy we have a free hand to negotiate other ways of central funding.
We should be told specifically what the present position is. The Government have had long enough to make up their mind, but they have no right to try to thrust on the industry a Board which would be a method of collecting money as an alternative to a levy. There are obviously other ways in which it could be done which would be more economic.
It is not good enough for the Government to expect us to pass the Order today unless they can show clearly that they not only recognise the need to offer an effective solution to this issue, which has aroused such bitterness in the industry, but also that they are in a position to propose definite moves to bring this about. Therefore, we should be told this.
That is why we are entitled to expect a clear indication of what sort of permanent solution the Government are now prepared to bring forward. This dispute has already done too much harm to the industry and Parliament cannot simply wash its hands of the matter by allowing the Order to go through.
The impression which many farmers have is that the Under-Secretary's Department and, in particular, his right hon. Friend the Minister have been too harsh and dictatorial in this matter. [An HON. MEMBER: "Obstinate."] "Obstinate", one of my hon. Friends says. That is probably a good word for it.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Bloody-minded.

Mr. Godber: I will not take up that phrase.
I will merely quote from the letter which the right hon. Lady the Minister sent to the President of the National Farmers' Union on 19th September last, when she said:
I must make it clear that farmers cannot simply opt out of statutory obligations laid on them by Parliament. Any basic change in the arrangements would require legislation and the final decision could only rest with Parliament.
Very well. If the right hon. Lady says that the final decision rests with Parliament, I agree with that. That is why we here in Parliament today should be told precisely what the Government propose so that we may know. It is not good enough merely to threaten the N.F.U. with a diktat, as it were, that the levy is to be imposed through the fertiliser subsidy. Therefore, let us hear precisely what realistic proposals the Government can bring forward.
The Minister may tell us that if the House should refuse to pass the Order tonight that will mean that the Board will have to be wound up. In all the circumstances, would such a result be looked upon by the farming community as a total disaster? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I pose that question reluctantly—some of my hon. Friends seem keen on it—because I have consistently refused to have anything to do with those who set themselves up simply to destroy the Board. I want to look at it constructively and see what else can be done. I am sure that my hon. Friends agree in that.
Whatever our inclinations, however, we cannot ignore the facts. The Minister must come to terms with the facts of farming opinion. I say it reluctantly, but I believe that the Minister must now seriously consider winding up the Board unless she can reconstitute it in a way which will enable it to regain the confidence of the industry. If the Minister wishes to reconstitute it, let us have an announcement now that she proposes to initiate new discussions with all the interested parties. These should include not only the Board, the N.F.U. and the N.U.A.W., but also representatives of farm institutes and the county technical colleges as well.
I am reluctant to see any industrial training board disappear once it has been


set up but the present state of affairs is bringing disrepute on both the agriculture industry and on the Industrial Training Act. Neither of them deserves it. If the Board cannot be enabled to secure the support of the industry which it was set up to serve, there are other ways in which the objectives of training in agriculture can be achieved.
In seeking a solution to this unhappy matter, there are two essentials to be kept in mind. I hope that the Under-Secretary will say that he agrees with them. The first is that training in agriculture is as vital as in any other industry. The second is that the industry itself should pay for that training in some way or other.

Mr. Hattersley: indicated assent.

Mr. Godber: I am glad to have that agreement. There is, however, a third factor, and that is the co-operation of those engaged in the industry. If a reconstituted Board can satisfy those three requirements, it still can succeed.
I gather that the chairman of the Board would be willing to recommend to his members any changes on which the Government and the industry were agreed. If that is so, it is important that greater efforts should be made to get changes proposed of the type which would be realistic and acceptable to the industry as well as to the Government.
If necessary, however, an alternative could be found. This could be done by building on the existing facilities which are provided in the counties. What has held them back in the past has, in my view, not been lack of interest, but lack of funds. That could be overcome by recourse to the Price Review. I resist the temptation to expand on that theme, because I realise that to do so might be to go outside the bounds of order. I mention it merely to show that there are alternatives which could be used if necessary.
I summarise, therefore, by saying that we on this side are no longer ready to give our assent to a levy Order for the Board on the same basis and the same grounds as the Order was passed last year. It is evident that much more is needed to get training in the industry on to a sound footing. I have suggested ways in which this could be done. If the

Minister, when he replies, cannot satisfy us that the Government are at last taking effective steps to overcome the present difficulties, I must invite my hon. Friends to support me in opposing an Order which can solve nothing and which can make the present position infinitely worse

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Bert Hazell: I regret that a Prayer of this kind has again been brought before the House on the second of the Orders which have been laid concerning the Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board. Before speaking about it, I should like to say to the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) that I am sure that the House will sympathise with his roughness of voice, which must have made it extremely difficult for him to speak in the able manner which he has done this afternoon.
We recall that just over 12 months ago we had two debates on the question of the levy to be applied to the agricultural industry to enable the Board which had been established to carry out its proper functions. Those debates were debates in which a good deal of political bitterness was shown by hon. Members on the Opposition side. Indeed, one gathered the impression on that occasion that some Opposition Members were trying to get on the bandwagon of a Measure which, within an element of the agricultural industry, had not been approved.
The fact that today we again have a Prayer on the levy is particularly unfortunate, not because of what may be said in this House, but because the knowledge that these Prayers appear to be fairly constant will affect the morale of the staff of the Board, who are trying to do a job with efficiency and helpfulness to the agricultural industry. Nothing is more disquieting to the staff of any board or undertaking than to know that its future is under constant criticism, as is the case when these Prayers are before the House.
The job of encouraging training in agriculture is no easy one. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Grantham has pointed out some of the problems: the fragmentation of the agriculture industry, the wide areas to be covered and the smallness of the staffs on individual farms. The very fact of these difficulties probably


calls for a board such as the Agricultural Training Board, if it is to do the job properly and efficiently, to have to engage more outside staff than might be the case in many other boards which are established for other industrial undertakings. We must bear this factor in mind when considering the job that the Board has set itself to undertake.
No one denies the need for training. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Grantham emphasised that in his speech. What is denied is the type of tools required to do the job. In making his point on this aspect, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the work of the agricultural institutes and local education authorities, which have done a first-class job within their limitations, and are continuing to do a good job for the agricultural and horticultural industries. I hope to refer to this again in my speech.
We must bear in mind, when discussing the Prayer, the changes that have overcome agriculture in a relatively short period of time—technological changes accompanied by a very substantial loss of manpower in recent years.
In the past, a father used to pass on advice to his son or the older worker to the younger worker. But this system of training, which has stood in good stead for decades, no longer exists. There are insufficient skilled workers who have the time available to pass on training knowledge to the younger people. Farms that used to employ 10 to 20 workers probably now employ two to five workers, according to the type of cultivation or operations that are carried on. With this limitation of manpower on individual units there is insufficient time available for training those coming into the industry. The job is so urgent and the work so considerable within a limited period of time that the services of everyone have to be utilised to the full in the task of cultivation and farming operations.
The National Farmers' Union recognised this some time before any question of an approach to my right hon. Friend for the setting up of a trained board was considered. It spent many days with representatives of my own organisation, the National Union of Agricultural Workers, and others trying to formulate some policy for the purpose of training.

It eventually came down on the side of a properly established training board under the Industrial Training Act which the right hon. Gentleman takes pride in having pushed through this House.
It was no snap decision to approach my right hon. Friend for a training board. It was a decision arrived at after very great care and thought. Had it been a snap decision, I could understand the criticism and the opposition that has been expressed against the Board by an element within agriculture. Looking at the statements made in January and February, 1968, I gathered the impression that the Board was foisted upon agriculture by the Government. This just was not the case. Indeed, I think I am on very sound ground in saying that the Minister drew the attention of representatives of the industry to the problems and difficulties that would arise if such a board was established. However, the industry, through its representatives, was adamant that a board was the answer to the problem. Therefore, the Minister was asked to set up the necessary machinery.
I accept that an element within agriculture has not responded as we would have hoped. To what extent this has been influenced by debates, discussions and Press reports that were very considerable 12 months ago, no one can tell.
The right hon. Gentleman drew attention to the fact that about 26,000 farmers had not paid the levy. To what extent this number has been reduced in recent times, only the Board can say. I think that the majority of those who have not paid the levy did not do so because of views expressed subsequently by the Council of the National Farmers' Union. Nevertheless, despite the difficulties imposed upon the Board by a strong minority, it is interesting to note that of 37 area advisory committees planned—committees manned by volunteers—36 have been established. These area advisory committees are representative of farmers as well as workers and people from the educational realm.
The right hon. Member for Grantham posed four points. I want to emphasise two of the points of opposition to the Board. The first concerns the cost of the scheme. The levy is £3 10s. It was originally proposed that the levy should be £6 per adult full-time worker employed within the industry. Had that figure been


operative, it would have represented a charge of 0·3 per cent. to the industry. Compared with other industries that have established training boards, despite all the heavy liabilities of the Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board in needing a large outside field staff because of the fragmentation within agriculture, the smallness of the units, the number of employees per farm and the distance to be covered, the Board has been very modest in its demands.
Looking at the table set out in answer to a Written Question by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Silvester) in the OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1969, Vol. 777, c. 201–2., of the many industries that have established boards, only two have demanded a figure of 0·1 per cent. less than the Agricultural Training Board. The vast majority of the others have 0·9, 0·75, 1 per cent., 2·5, 1·25, 1 per cent., 1·55 per cent., and so on. Looking at the amounts that other training boards have set as their requirements for training within those industries, appreciating the size of manpower within those industries compared with agriculture, frankly, the sum demanded by the Agricultural Training Board is minimal.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: Surely the point is not the size of the levy, but the amount of work which the Board does for it? Can the hon. Member point to any good schemes which the Board has introduced? The trouble is that people do not feel that the Board is doing any good.

Mr. Hazell: As I understand, the criticism of the Board is twofold—first, in terms of its cost to the industry, and, secondly, in terms of the levy. As for the point that people do not feel that the Board is doing any good—it must be remembered that it has not yet been in operation for 12 months. I am sure that the hon. Member, as a practical man with knowledge of what has happened in the industry in the past 18 months, will not ignore the fact that foot-and-mouth disease completely upset the work of the Agricultural Training Board in developing its services. I am sure that he is as conscious as I am of the degree to which the Board's task was upset because of that unfortunate incident.
The cost factor has to be considered, but if we compare the cost imposed on

the industry under the Act with that imposed on other training boards, we find that it is small. The table speaks for itself. I hope that those who follow me in this debate will obtain a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT to which I have referred before they make statements which bear little relation to the question of costs.
The second factor was the fear of the Board's overlapping work done by other authorities. When it was set up the Agricultural Training Board was very conscious of the need to avoid overlapping with services already provided for the benefit of agriculture. It consequently appointed a special committee composed not of Board members, but of outside people, to advise it on the best way to create a close liaison with local authorities and to make sure that there was no overlapping of functions. This special committee was chaired by the Chief Education Officer of the Gloucester County Council, and with the exception of one farmer and two workers' representatives—one from each trade union; my own and the Transport and General Workers' Union—all its members were from the educational field.
I shall not give the names of the members; they are available in the report that has been published. The Milroy Report defined the terms of training to be provided by the board. That is clearly set out on page 4 of the report. I shall not read it, but I mention it because it is clear that the board has no desire to introduce facilities and services that might overlap those already provided by other bodies.
One thing that emerges clearly from the report is that the education authorities recognised that their scope was somewhat limited. The report shows clearly that there was a desire to co-operate with the training board. I know from experience that this co-operation is taking place under very cordial circumstances. Local education authorities had some difficulty in encouraging people to attend these classes. That is one of the problems confronting the industry. Of those who did attend the courses provided by local education authorities the majority were farmers' sons and daughters, and they probably still are.
But this is a type of training for all workers within the industry. Techniques


vary, and new methods and constantly being introduced. I recognise that my own organisation has a job to do in stimulating and encouraging young workers to take advantage of the facilities available. Refresher courses will be necessary, and if these are to be provided on a major scale it is essential that full-time people like the board's field officers should be available to interview both employer and employee, because with an ever-diminishing labour force—and I see no prospect of a halt in the outflow of labour from the land for some time to come—the need for highly skilled personnel becomes more and more important.
It will be recalled that the Agricultural Wages Board proposed an increase in pay which was subsequently referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes, and that one feature of the Prices and Incomes Board Report was that before another wage increase was proposed steps should be taken to develop a wages structure within the industry. It is essential that there should be an adequate training of workers to fit into that structure. How this can be done purely by a voluntary system on the part of local education authorities, I do not know; they have certainly not been able to command the attention and support of the vast majority of workers within the industry in the past, although I am not denying the good work that they have done.
The Board is also taking over the Apprenticeship Council. This was a voluntary body, set up to try to encourage young people to become apprentices in the industry. Its success has been minimal, but the report shows that since the Board has accepted responsibility there has been an increase in the number of young apprentices. I hope that this trend will continue. It shows the need for a board, and also shows that substantial costs are involved in developing on those lines.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that both sides of the House recognise the need for training, and I am sure that both sides will also realise that training cannot be established without such a board as that which has been created. Under the Industrial Training Act, the industry

must ultimately meet the costs of training its own employees. If we are agreed on this basic need, I hope that we will recognise that a generally efficient industry can and will become more efficient. Indeed, this is essential.
I hope that, if the House is called upon to vote, it will defeat the Prayer, but, in the interests of agriculture and the recognition of the need for adequate training in agriculture as in every major industry, I hope that the Prayer will not be put to the vote but will be withdrawn, showing that, in spite of the imperfections of a new Board and the difficulties during its inception, when the first levy was announced, the House recognises that a training board is essential and will do nothing to impede its progress but will allow it to get on with the job for which it was created.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: I have to tell the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) that I should have no hesitation, on the information that I have at the moment, in voting for the Prayer. The Parliamentary Secretary's reply might change my views, but at the moment I would find it easy to vote against the Order.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) has gone over the arguments so carefully that I have little to add. Not only as a farmer, but also as the governor of an agricultural college, I support all he said. As a farmer, I have not known of a course required by someone working on my farm which was not available. From time to time, some of them have taken agricultural courses. As a governor, I have also not been aware of any great need for anyone to advise us what courses were necessary. The range of courses were such that most men could find what was required.
Therefore, in my part of East Sussex, the average farmer wonders what the House feels the Board could contribute. There has been an excellent relationship between the agricultural college and the industry. The Board's officer is well-known and there is an excellent relationship with him. But the way in which the Board has managed its affairs has led those interested in agriculture in the area to be less than enthusiastic about the levy


and to provide few supporters for the Board's programme. On suggestions that there should be a deduction from the fertiliser subsidy, what my right hon. Friend said was restrained and modest; on his visit to East Sussex the point might be expressed to him rather more forcefully.
A discussion between the two sides of industry is proceeding at the moment and it seems regrettable that, during that time, a large number of summonses should be going out to make the relationship between the farmer and the Board even worse. In my part of the country, the Board does not appear to have made any real contribution to the training which was already available. The solution in the Order appears to them to be doctrinaire and, therefore, we would have no difficulty in voting against the Order.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. Tony Gardner: I am sorry that we have to go through all this business again. I must apologise to the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) for having left during part of his speech. His words moved me to some hasty research in the Library. His language in moving the Prayer was very moderate, but we should recollect that some of his hon. Friends did not use such moderate language, and some came to the same conclusion as he on the very day that the Board was set up and before it had had a chance to work. It is against this background that we should consider the Prayer.
Everyone was agreed when it was passed that the Industrial Training Act was first-class and a credit to the party opposite which enacted it. Both sides of industry, not only agriculture but industry generally, welcomed it as a remarkable step forward. It was recognised as necessary because industry could not or would not provide the training.
The history of the Agricultural Training Board makes interesting reading in relation to the conclusions of the right hon. Gentleman. When it was first proposed, it was generally welcomed by most in the industry and there was broad agreement between the Ministry, the N.F.U. and the agricultural trade unions, but from that moment the rebellion started, in this House and the country. It certainly did not come from the Opposition Front Bench, who were committed

to the Act and the idea of a Training Board. With respect to them, they supported my right hon. Friends' moves. However, the N.F.U. came under pressure at the same time as we were having those debates. The momentum against this Board has grown—

Mr. Angus Maude: In fairness, the hon. Gentleman should not suggest that the opposition to the Board and the levy among rank and file farmers originated in back-bench pressure on this side. Although the national leaders of the N.F.U. approved of this, there was, from the beginning, a considerable feeling in county branches that they had not been properly consulted and that they did not want to go along with it.

Mr. Gardner: Of course, I accept that; I hope that I was not implying the contrary. Certainly, some hon. Members opposite responded to the pressures from their own constituencies, but what disturbs me is that, as this pressure grew, those who were committed to the idea of the Training Board and, therefore, of some levy, gradually gave in to it.
When we had the first discussion about setting up a Training Board, there was bitter back-bench opposition to it. The opposition was not from the Front Benches, who were committed to the idea. I will not go over the ground of that debate. I recall that the case made against the Board was not the case made by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. It was flat, outright opposition to it in any shape or form.
Next we had a debate on the revised levy Order, on which there was the same kind of discussion. The figure then was £3. There was bitter opposition to any kind of levy. I recall the debates which he had, altogether over three days.
We have reached a situation in which, apparently, the N.F.U. officially does not like the set-up and the Official Opposition do not like it, either. What worries me is the way in which the public outside will look upon this debate. In what is, unfortunately, its final Report, the Select Committee on Agriculture stressed in some detail the growing importance of farm skills and the need for a better wage structure and for higher wages in agriculture if we are to stop the drift of workers from the land.
As we discussed in the previous debates, any form of training for agriculture must involve a great many people on the ground—and that is not intended as a pun. With the nature of agriculture, it is more necessary to spend a much higher proportion of any money which is raised on wages and salaries, because it is not a question of bringing thousands of people from one large factory to one central place for training, but a detailed question of helping and advising.
Some of the criticisms made of the Board are, therefore, manifestly unfair. It is not as if my hon. Friend and his Department have been unwilling to consider some of the problems. In view of the difficulties of the industry, as a result of foot-and-mouth disease, there were reductions in the levy. There was a recognition that farming was carrying a very heavy burden—and that this extra burden was not at all welcome. In a Written Answer to me on 4th March, my hon. Friend said that he was quite prepared to listen to any proposals put forward by the various interest in the industry. If there is something wrong with the way in which the levy is raised, we ought to look at it again.
But I suspect that the debate is not about a particular method of raising the levy or a particular way in which the Board operates in conducting its training scheme. I maintain that this is part of an outright opposition to any formalised training scheme for the industry, and what worries me is whether we are doing the best that we should be doing on behalf of the industry. We ought to give the Government this Order tonight with a clear instruction that they must look at the way in which the Board is operating and must constantly be in contact with the industry discussing ways in which the Board might improve its work. If it is possible to find alternative ways in which the levy could be raised—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: How do we give give the Government a clear instruction except through the Division Lobbies? I know of on other way of giving the Government an instruction.

Mr. Gardner: The instruction which the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) wants to give the Government is that they should abolish the

Industrial Training Board. I cannot possibly go into the Division Lobby in support of such a Motion.
I suggest that my hon. Friend ought to be examining ways in which the training in the industry can be improved and, if possible, in which ways of raising the levy can be improved. Hon. Members opposite are voicing an opposition to a levy in any form, and that disturbs me more than anything else. At the moment, the Press is debating a subject about farming which we cannot discuss this afternoon, and agriculture is rightly looking to all of us in the House for support in its efforts to produce more of Britain's food.
At a time when an argument about money is going on, and just before my right hon. Friend makes an announcement on the subject later this week, it is disturbing that in the House we are arguing about a measly £3 10s. I wonder what will be the effect on the electorate, to whom the farmers must look for support, of a vote in the Division Lobby tonight on this Order.
It disturbs me that we should have a debate on these terms. Having made some valid points about the peculiar problems of agriculture, hon. Members opposite should let my hon. Friend have the Order and see what we can do to give the Board a fair start and to improve its work as it goes along.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. John Wells: Agriculture is the only industry which has its own Minister and for that reason training within agriculture should be within the control and general knowledge of the Minister of Agriculture and not under an industrial training board. For that reason I have been an outright opponent of the Board from its inception, and I make no bones about that. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) seemed to think that it was wrong of us to have the debate today because it might upset the morale of the staff. That is the most feeble, wet and undemocratic argument I have ever heard. It might have come from the training board.
The hon. Member said that the decicision to set up the Board had been reached with very great care and after discussions with the N.F.U. and his own


union. But it was considered with very great care by a handful of men. The great bulk of the farming community had never heard of it and knew nothing of it—and when they did hear of it they did not want to know about it.
The hon. Member also drew attention to the excuse about foot-and-mouth disease which we have heard in every debate on this subject. This is a valid excuse why the Board could not publicise itself, but it is also a valid excuse why the opponents of the scheme could not get round the country stirring opposition up a little more quickly. He said that the Board has taken every precaution to avoid overlapping with the county colleges. Indeed, they have done so. They gobbled up the best staff of the county colleges and gave them a large rise in salary.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) said that he would not set out to apportion blame, and I do not want to depart from those words of wisdom, although I have little doubt where the bulk of the blame for this fiasco lies. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) rightly drew attention to the sentences in the Report of the Select Committee on Agriculture dealing with training, and I go the whole way with him in wanting some form of training—but not the sort of training provided by the Board. In common with 51 to 50 of the N.F.U. executives of my county—in that ratio—I believe that there should be agricultural training based on the county colleges. Time and again the present Chairman of the Board has made great play with the difference between the words "training" and "education". He has tried to ram this home at every turn, and we must accept his good intentions in this respect. But the fact remains that these educational establishments are far more training establishments than are many other types of educational establishment. It would not have been very difficult to graft on to them training of the sort which the farmers want.
My right hon. Friend rightly made the point that the great bulk of farmers have one employee or no employee. It is almost impossible for the one-employee farmer to release a worker. The no-employee farmer has no entitlement. If we had a completely new scheme organised between the Ministry of Agriculture

and the local education authorities, the one-employee man would do his best to release his man and the self-employed man would be in a position to take advantage of it.
One of the great objections to the Board is its extremely expensive headquarters staff. We are told that there are 184 people there. Hon. Members will have enjoyed reading two informative hand-out about the Board's activities. They came without tops or bottoms. They might have descended like the tablets found by Mr. Brigham Young. My eyesight indicates to me, however, that they were typed on the same typewriter as that used to produce publicity material coming from the Agricultural Training Board. I am not a specialist in typewriters, and I may be wrong about that, but it looks to me as if these hand-outs have come from A.M. Publicity Associates Limited. It may be that we shall have a debate on another day on spheres of influence, but it seems wrong that hon. Members should be pressurised with typewritten "bumph" without any indication of its origin.
I disagree with my right hon. Friend on one point only. He implied that the Board had not told us very much about what it was doing. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North followed my right hon. Friend on this point, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine). We all feel that we have not heard enough about what the Board is doing. It may be that the secretaries of those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen must be keener on the waste-paper basket than mine is, because I am inundated with hand-outs telling me what a good man Mr. Basil Neame is and what good fellows the Board members are. They repeat themselves ad nauseam. I hope that we shall see a severe cut-back in the Board's paper output.
I want now to turn to this matter of the alternative finances which, after all, is the main theme of our Prayer. We have two hand-out from the Ministry, the first dated 10th February, and the second dated 19th February. In paragraph 5 of the first one we read:
As soon as necessary legislation can be obtained, the Board's operations covering agriculture and horticulture will be financed by deductions from the fertiliser subsidy.


I ask hon. Members to mark the words "will be financed".
Moving on nine days to the hand-out dated 19th February, we read in the second paragraph:
These proposals, which are now under consideration by the parties concerned, envisage that the Board might in future be financed by deductions from the fertiliser subsidy rather than by levy, if this is more acceptable to the industry and commands their support.
I want to repeat what has been said to me by the chairman of my county branch of the N.F.U., who knows me well and who knows the Chairman of the Board, Reporting the feelings of his executive he says:
Further, they wanted nothing to do with the Board being financed from the Price Review. There is no doubt that in Kent at least the Minister wants the present Training Board set-up to continue. She will do it without any support from us until such time as the administration and control comes back to the local education authorities.
That is what the farmers want. That is what serious and responsible men at the top of the industry in the County of Kent want. Because of our horticultural interests, we have more labour-heavy farms and, therefore, these men speak from experience and concern.
Finally, I wish to draw the attention of hon. Members to the Explanatory Note to the Order. According to that Note, one of the aims of the Order is to raise money towards the expenses of the Board. That is a fine situation. The Board will be empowered to raise the levy largely to defray its own expenses. I believe that we need some outside guidance in this matter, and that we should get back to a more simple and more acceptable method of agricultural training within the shadow of the Ministry of Agriculture and away from the present Department.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. James Tinn: I observe that there are still several hon. Members opposite who wish to speak and, therefore, I will be very brief. I can promise that because while Cleveland has a considerable farming interest, my own knowledge of the industry is very small. As a result, it may be that I am in the position of commenting on the debate so far rather than contributing to it.
I can, however, claim to approach the debate with a genuinely open mind, quite free from the constitutional pressures to which apparently, some hon. Members have been subjected. I have not been deluged by representations from farmers or farm workers in my constituency, indeed, not a single letter; and perhaps I might express the hope that that omission will not be remedied too heavily tomorrow, although I would have considered their representations had they been made.
With respect to the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), I found his moderate approach attractive and persuasive. We all appreciated his difficulty with his voice, but, having noted the reactions of some of his hon. Friends to his moderation, I cannot help thinking that he would have been wiser to have passed today's task to one of his colleagues with less responsibility for the industrial training legislation, one consequence of which we are discussing today.
We accept the special factors which the right hon. Member listed applying to agriculture. There is the fragmentation of the industry, for example. However, another industry in a similar position, though perhaps it is not quite so fragmented, is the building industry. There, too, there was the problem of many small producers and, in the case of building, the industrial training boards are doing a useful and valuable job. It may be that it is when an industry is composed of so many small producers that the assistance in co-ordinating efforts towards training which a board can offer is so important.
The right hon. Member acknowledged very fairly the need for improved training facilities. However, that was one of the points on which I detected some disagreement among his hon. Friends. I believe that the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine), for example, considers that the existing courses are adequate. Presumably, he does not think that they require improving.
The right hon. Member accepts the need for training, as I think most of us do. However, if I understood him correctly, he concentrated a good deal of his criticism on the cost of the scheme and, more precisely, the way in which that cost is being raised. He is critical of the proposed further levy and of what


he fears will be a higher than acceptable administrative cost. I think that he envisages the figure of 20 per cent. I cannot comment on that point, but perhaps my hon. Friend can enlighten us. The very peculiarities of the industry may make some higher administrative costs inevitable.

Mr. Godber: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with great interest. I am grateful for what he has said. I remember that, as Minister, the first board I set up was for the engineering industry. When that board was set up, there were discussions with its chairman about the problems of small firms within the industry at that time. It was the board's intention initially to exclude all those firms employing five or fewer workers. Whether it did so, I do not know. This is what has worried me in regard to agriculture, where hardly any farms have more than five men. In an industry so fragmented, the principles of the Act are very difficult to implement.

Mr. Tinn: While accepting the difficulty and recognising how great is the problem of overcoming it, I am very conscious of what my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) said about the importance of more highly-skilled labour. Great though the difficulty may be, it must be overcome, and I am not entirely convinced that the Board is not the appropriate means of doing this.
I found the contribution made by my hon. Friend very reassuring. I know that although he is a member of the National Union of Agricultural Workers his concern is equally for both sides of the industry, because he recognises that we cannot further the welfare of the farm workers without furthering the welfare of the farming industry. Overlapping seemed to be a risk, but he reassured us by his first-hand knowledge of the consultations that have gone on with education authorities with a view to avoiding that risk.
Having come to the debate with an interested and, I hope, a responsible and responsive frame of mind, I am confident that I shall find myself supporting the Government.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I enter the debate with some diffidence,

having only recently resumed responsibility in my party for agriculture, having given up that responsibility in 1964.
We debate this matter in an era when the country and this House have been virtually mesmerised by boards. Every industry has wanted a board of some kind; we have had a plethora of them. Having looked at the problem with, I hope, a rather detached eye, I think that few of the bodies or institutions concerned with the Agricultural Training Board fracas come out with any great credit. It is right to say that the Government were requested to set up the Board, and I think that all that has since followed has stemmed from that request.
There appears to have been inadequate consultation between the National Farmers' Union headquarters and the branches. The more I look at the problem, the more I believe that the instinctive reaction of the rank-and-file farmers against the Board was right. I do not say that in criticism of the Government—the Government only set up what the industry's representatives apparently asked them to set up. The problems of the industry and its set-up make it difficult for any Board of this kind to operate at all satisfactorily.
The farming industry is in an extremely dissatisfied state. Those working on the land know that they can produce much more food, if encouraged to do so, without any more training. They know that the work force has been declining at a rate of 2 per cent. per annum, no matter what may be the training and qualifications of those who leave the land. It very often happens that those who leave the land have been extremely highly trained and skilled, yet they have left the land because of inadequate remuneration. The problem is not that of having to train for other means of employment.
There seems to be something ludicrous about the Board starting up; taking lecturers from agricultural schools and institutes right, left and centre, with all the necessary regional committees and a large administrative staff at headquarters. Most people in farming in mid-Wales are self-employed. The few who do employ labour have only one or two men, and they find it very difficult to spare those men to go on courses. I


know that they wonder whether this is the best way to spend £½ million—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. We cannot, on this Prayer, debate the issue of the existence of the Board.

Mr. Hooson: With respect, this issue affects whether or not we vote for the Prayer. If the Order is rejected, the Board has no money.
If there is need for a national Board, which I dispute, the industry itself must pay for it, and in many ways the levy system based on the number of men employed is the fairest way of paying. Such a levy gives us a far better and fairer way than is provided by deduction from the fertiliser subsidy. The real issue is whether the House and the Government have gone wrong in setting up the Board at all.
I am convinced that training is needed in the industry, but adequate facilities already exist and these could be further developed locally as the occasion required. I have encouraged some farmers in my constituency to let their men go on weekend courses advertised in the farming Press and run by farming education authorities in different parts of the country. They are very often extremely helpful, and such courses can easily be organised otherwise than by a ponderous national training board. Unlike other industries, farming is not set up to take a national board of this kind.
It is inevitable that in seeking to publicise itself the Board should send out a lot of advertising matter. The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells), who complained about the amount of material he received, probably got it as a fanner rather than as a Member of Parliament. I, too, farm, and I have received some of this literature by means of which the Board is trying to impress itself upon the industry.
I do not dispute that the Board can do a lot of good, but what it can do is limited, and the money could be better spent in other ways. I do not criticise the Government for saying that if there is to be a Board it should be financed by means of a levy. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) rather wanted

to have his cake and eat it when he suggested that there was need for a training board, but that it should be financed by means other than that of a levy. I have little patience with that argument. If we are to have a Board, a levy is the fair way of paying for it. What is in dispute, and where the instinct of the agricultural community is correct, is the need for the Board at all. It means a further proliferation of boards. Every board is not necessarily for the great benefit of the industry concerned. That is why I have the greatest possible qualms about whether we should continue with the board at all, and that is why I shall vote for the Prayer.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Angus Maude: It would be unkind to make too much of the fact that hon. Members opposite who have spoken today have not produced what one could call an overwhelmingly enthusiastic defence of the Agricultural Training Board or the levy system. The hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) said that he was fairly confident that the Board was a not inappropriate medium for carrying out the job. That was scarcely an hilarous welcome to an organisation.
The hon. Member also said that he found the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) greatly reassuring. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North said that the Board had not been able to do much; time would show whether it was able to do much; it was a very expensive job that it had to do; and the only fair thing to do was to give it a chance to show whether it could do anything. How reassuring one could find that welcome I do not know.

Mr. Hazell: I said that the Board had not been able to do a great deal because it had been established for less than 12 months of effective working due to foot-and-mouth disease.

Mr. Maude: While the foot-and-mouth outbreak is a good reason for a certain lack of peripatetic vigour on the pan of the Board's minions, after a year we should be able to have a rather more forthcoming outlook for the Board's activities than any hon. Member opposite has given us.

Mr. Tinn: One of the most reassuring parts of my hon. Friend's contribution was his disclosure of the low costs of this Board compared with others. As to the moderation of my welcome, I was trying to emulate the moderation of the right hon. Friend of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude). Obviously I overdid it. I hope to do better next time.

Mr. Maude: I was coming to the question of cost, and I was about to suggest that the hon. Member for Norfolk, North was talking beside the point altogether. The point is not whether the costs of the Agricultural Training Board form a higher proportion of the income of the industry than others. The question is what proportion of the money going to the Board is being spent on useful, practical work and how much on overheads and administrative expenses. That is what we want to know. Unless we get a quite clear exposition from the Under-Secretary when he winds up the debate we shall all feel obliged to vote for the Prayer.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, North was himself not a very reassuring witness. I remember that during the last debate we had on this matter he justified the then proposed size of the levy by pointing to the enormous number of files which the civil servants co-opted into this organisation would have to shuffle around in their new headquarters. To levy farmers at £3 10s. an employee and to shuffle files around the headquarters with little as yet shown on the ground, and no doubt little to be shown in future, is not the way to encourage them to accept this proposition.
The hon. Member was perfectly correct in saying that this is the culminating point in a pile-up of boards and levies of which farmers are getting extremely tired. They are becoming disillusioned with the whole machinery of the statutory board and a levy on farming. The hon. Member was probably correct in saying that if we are to have a statutory board, a levy is the traditional and perhaps the logical way of financing it, but the question is whether statutory boards and their imposition on farmers are not becoming a quite excessive proportion of a farmer's outgoings compared with any good they do. One after another these boards are beginning to lose the con-

fidence of the farmers largely because they tend to become bureaucratic and top-heavy.
In the last debate I said to the Under-Secretary that we could perhaps accept what we were asked to pass with a little more enthusiasm if we were dealing with an inefficient industry, but in terms of increase in productivity since 1939 this, by a very long way, is the most efficient industry in the country. If we had had increases in productivity in manufacturing industries compared with what has happened in agriculture we should not have a balance of payments problem at all. When we have a system of agricultural education and training already in existence which is under-utilised in many places, it seems extraordinary to set up a large bureaucratic organisation to add to the provision.
When I mentioned this and some of my hon. Friends brought up this point in the last debate, the answer we had was, "Oh, yes, but the Board will act as a sort of middleman and introduce the workers who need courses to the vacant places which exist in farm institutes and other institutions." It does not need a board to do this. Not only local county branches of the N.F.U. can do a great deal towards this if they set about it, but any competent local education authority is capable of doing it through its elected and co-opted members.
This is something which proper cooperation between farmers and education authorities can cope with without any necessity for central machinery or a levy. For all the good that farmers see coming from it, the thing might as well not exist. We have to keep a sense of proportion about these things and ask whether in the economic condition of the country—above all in the economic condition of the industry, the parlousness of which we shall discuss later this week—this does not make complete nonsense.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) was right in saying that nobody who took part in debates on the Industrial Training Act and voted for it thought that agriculture was a suitable industry for treatment in this way. The engineering industry is a quite different proposition from the agriculture industry. The difficulties, as my right hon. Friend said,


of releasing farm workers from small farms where there is perhaps only one employee per farm and of getting self-employed farmers, with no employed labour, to take advantage of training facilities when they have stock to look after and cows to milk are overwhelming.
Unless we can be provided with something a little clearer in the way of advantages and the practical good that will come from the extra expenditure that farmers are asked to make, unless we can find something a little more encouraging than the ability to shuffle files around in national headquarters, the sooner we say goodbye to this Board the better.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I has said on numerous occasions that I am vehemently opposed to the Order and to the setting up of a Board for the agricultural industry. I am sorry to say this, because it looks as though I am opposed to training. The fact is that I am very keen on training in agriculture. We must have it. The industry is getting fewer and fewer men. Because of the differential in rates of pay between agricultural and industrial workers, the industry is liable to lose some of the best and keenest of the younger men, whom we cannot afford to lose.
Although I am extremely keen on the training of farm workers and am on my own County Education Committee and was for many years on the Agricultural Sub-Committee, I agree with my hon. Friends that this method of training farm workers and farmers is not the right one for the industry. It is a very top-heavy and expensive method. I want to see the expansion of local education authorities' training colleges and schemes, which in some parts, certainly in Norfolk, are exceptionally good.
Though this point was laughed at when my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) mentioned it, the Explanatory Note rather reveals the dictatorial way in which the Board has gone about its business. It states:
This Order gives effect to proposals… for the imposition of a further levy upon employers.… The levy will be assessed by the Board".

This is the sort of thing which farmers—practical, hard-headed men—object to. The Board was formed as a complete bungle by the Government, who showed a lack of understanding of the way in which farmers and farm workers and the industry work. It is almost equal to the way in which the public relations over Stansted and the Land Commission have been handled.
I am a member of three branches of the N.F.U. I admit that a contributory cause was the lack of consultation by N.F.U. headquarters of branches. I have spoken to practically every member of the executive of my branch of the N.F.U. There is no doubt that they never had an opportunity to discuss this in any detail. They had no idea that this was the sort of Board that would come about.

Mr. Hazell: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is one of the responsibilities of delegates from his county branch of the N.F.U. to report back from headquarters of the N.F.U. what has taken place and what is taking place? Does he not agree that the Daily Mail of 30th January contained the statement from the National Farmers' Union that its members were informed through their journal in July, 1966, of the proposals when the full details of the Board's activities and forecast of levy were published? The N.F.U. stated that not a mumur of dissent was received from the present objectors. This was on the occasion of the last debate.

Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful for that second speech from my opposite number, the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell). I repeat that branches did not discuss this fully and that in my opinion the N.F.U. headquarters is to some extent responsible. As soon as practical farmers throughout the country understood what it was all about, they realised that they were having a scheme foisted on them which would involve the expenditure of far too much money on offices and people who would not do a job.
The result has been the building up of an enoromus and over-fat bureauracy, which has been almost the last word in the boards and extra personnel who seem to have to be paid out of agriculture. I read only the other day—I do not know whether it was in the Daily Mail or what paper it was in; I believe that it was in


The Times—that the Ministry of Agriculture's overheads per farm now amounted to about £800. This is another small straw. The point is reached at which people rebel. Those who do not understand the way in which the farming industry works will find themselves with rebellions on their hands.
I am absolutely convinced from examples that I have that the Board is duplicating services which were already much better provided, in my part of the world at any rate, by local education authorities, industrial firms, bodies such as the Sugar Corporation, and others. The Norfolk Education Committee has a first-class Easton College, which runs full-time, part-time and weekend courses in engineering, maintenance of vehicles, livestock care, and many other subjects. There is the Burlingham Horticultural Institute. We were the instituters of the Stockmen's Club and the Farm Machinery Club which farm workers, farmers' sons, and others from all over the county attend in the evenings in their own time.
This is the way education is carried out in agricultural districts where travelling distance are great. The education has to be done in people's spare time—in the evenings, at weekends, or, in the case of people young enough to do so, at full-time courses. However, as a general rule the education has to be undertaken out of working hours. Great difficulty arises in the case of a farm on which there is only a small number of employees: it is difficult to release a key man to undertake a training course.
Coming to some of the Board's activities, I think it is extremely unfair on horticulture. I want to read part of a letter from the managing director of a large horticultural firm in my constituency. This gentleman explained to me that he had asked a lot of questions at a meeting. We writes in this vein to the Information Officer, the Agricultural and Horticultural Training Board:
I am sorry I did not make it clear to you that my object in gathering information from you is to try to get the entire scheme stopped as far as horticulture is concerned before it has gone too far. There are already 32 horticultuial training colleges in the British Isles, which should certainly suffice. If they are not large enough, some money could be spent by the Ministry of Agriculture to make more places available …".

This is the way in which we should go to work. The most economical and best way of spending the money which is being raised would be, under the administration of the Ministry of Agriculture or of the Department of Education and Science, to give it to training colleges to enable them to run additional courses. We have wanted to expand at Easton in Norfolk for a long time. I do not believe that one farmer would object if the facilities which he has known and respected for a long time in his own area were expanded with the money which is being raised from him, because he would know that the money would not be wasted.
May I suggest the remedy? Let the Chairman and the Board resign now. The Ministry should waive all outstanding accounts and return all payments already made.
I want to mention a peculiar thing which the Board has done in another case. It has refused to allow courses to be paid for which are taken in the evening out of working time. It wants all the courses to be run in farmers' time. Yet men are keen enough to attend the Stockmen's Club and the Farm Machinery Club, to quote only two examples, in the evening in their own time.
With regard to the payment which 26,000 farmers are being dunned for at present, although I myself do not farm I act for about half a dozen employers who were being asked for this levy. I am afraid I left the matter until the last "three-line whip" came in, with the three red lines underneath, and then we paid up because we felt that we could not let the employers go to prison. Three months later we got solicitors' letters saying that the payments had not been made. I checked with my bank and found that all the cheques had gone through about two and a half months before. I wrote to the solicitors, who sent back a sort of round robin letter saying that they were very sorry but the Board's affairs were in such a muddle that they had sent out these notices by mistake.
Let the Board resign now. Let us wind up this Board. We want well-trained young men in agriculture; but I also agree that we want a small committee which can consider the local education facilities throughout the whole


of the country. If it is found, say, in Bedfordshire or Northumberland or Norfolk or Durham—in any county—that some facilities are lacking and that the next-door county has a good centre, let that centre be expanded so that the counties can be drawn together to it. Let the existing facilities be expanded, but do not let us go on wasting our money on a Board with headquarters up and down the country and with a lot of people who have to be paid large sums in travelling expenses.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I make no apology for taking part in this debate. I know very little, if anything, about agriculture, having spent my life in the engineering industry, but I am interested in this debate and I wish to pose a few questions for my own satisfaction.
Although I have been an industrial worker all my life, I was born in the country and I have great admiration and respect for the small farmer. He has enabled my family and myself, as well as many others, to enjoy some of the finest food in Europe. I am very grateful to the farming community, and especially to the Scottish farmers for their Scotch beef.
We all recognise that over the last 30 years every young man who has been conscious of his future has thought in terms of an industry with a career structure. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) mentioned the engineering industry. In the engineering industry, whenever a man is trained he is placed in a unit with a career structure. There are thousands of parallel examples of occupations where there is a career structure. Therefore, if one is contributing to a group apprenticeship scheme one is always conscious that if one fails to gain an apprenticeship in one unit one can try to get one somewhere else. There is this flow of interchange because of the nature of the industry. I should think that the smallest unit in engineering is 50 or 60 employees. I can understand every engineering employer supporting a training board, for here is a focal point from which can flow young trained men.
The small farmer, however, cannot provide a career structure. A farmer employing 50 or 60 men can do so, or he can join a group of farmers. But the small hill farmer cannot provide a career structure. Therefore, he feels that when he contributes to a training board he is contributing to a board which provides training to enable men to be fed into large agricultural units where there is a career structure. He cannot envisage how this can feed men into his small unit because he has no career structure. A man who is working for a tenant farmer is in the same position, for he knows that there is little likelihood of becoming a tenant farmer himself. Therefore, I have a great deal of sympathy for the small farmer who objects to paying this levy.
It has been said that the small farmer who employs one man cannot afford to release that man. What happens if he does? If a small farmer in the West of Scotland, North Somerset or Devon releases a man for training, the likelihood is that he will lose that man. The man will meet other people from big farms. He will learn that there are other opportunities which do not exist on the farm from which he has come, and, therefore, the small farmer will be paying to help provide trained material for the large farmer. I do not know whether farmers feel as I do. I do not meet small farmers. I am merely comparing the situation with that in the industry with which I have been connected, and I can envisage the sort of gulf to which I have been referring.
Although what I say may seem superficial, I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can persuade small farmers that for everyone who is drawn into this net and who makes a contribution there is a second or third point of flowback to that individual. It is the duty of the Executive, whatever Government are in power, to show conclusively that that is so. The small farmer seems to be getting nothing at all out of this, and I hope my hon. Friend can persuade us that in the long term this is a good thing for the small farmer. I hope that the Board will be beneficial to the small farmer, because I am very conscious of what a blessing the small farmer is to us all.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I agree substantially with what the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) has said. So often when there are agricultural reviews it is profitability which is taken as the desirable criterion. Profitability is very desirable, but high output per acre is also highly desirable. The pattern of the two is substantially different. The small farm in this country often appears not to be very profitable, but when one looks at the figures one finds that its output per acre is high. We are losing 50,000 acres of land a year for road and house construction, and so on, and this tends to be the better than average land, for people do not usually build housing estates on tops of mountains or in areas which are frequently flooded.
It is in our interests that small farmers should be encouraged because they make such an intensive use of each acre of land that they have. I mention this point because I sometimes think that the contribution which the small farmers make in feeding this nation with an expanding population is underrated. A farmer who employs nobody will pay no levy under this Order. But if the Board is financed by siphoning off some of the fertiliser subsidy, the farmer who employs no labour will be paying to the Board. That must be borne in mind. An alternative scheme siphoning the money off at the source through the Price Review, to put it like that, would make everyone pay for the Board whether he benefited from it or not.
The Minister may say that if we do not want it paid for out of the Price Review money we, presumably, want it paid for by the levy or, alternatively, if we do not want the levy, we must have it paid for in some other way. But the real alternative is not to have it paid for at all, by not having the Board. There seems to be a horror of ever changing one's mind nowadays. It is thought almost disreputable or dishonourable to change one's mind, as though learning from experience was reprehensible. Perish the thought.
There is a theoretical argument for a training board. There is a theoretical argument for training boards in general, and good arguments for a number of

training boards in various industries. In the same way, there are spheres in which marketing boards carry out a useful function. But we can recall marketing boards which have gone. The Tomato and Cucumber Marketing Board was an example. It was set up, quite properly, and with the assent of the majority of producers—otherwise, it could not have come into existence—but after the experience of living with it, the majority of producers found that the cost of running it was disproportionate to the services which it provided. I trust that no one thought that there was anything dishonest, dishonourable or reprehensible in abolishing that Board, although it used the money which it was raising in levies to fight for its own existence. I fear that we shall see large sums of money raised in levy for the Agricultural Training Board consumed not in training people in agriculture, horticulture and forestry, but in public relations exercises the object of which is to protect the employment of people employed by the Agricultural Training Board.

Miss J. M. Quennell: My hon. Friend is referring to the Cucumber and Tomato Marketing Board. He has not forgotten the Egg Board, has he?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: How right my hon. Friend is. That is another example tending to confirm the view that we should never allow it to become doctrine, by implication or anything else, that we have a duty to perpetuate a board once we have set it up. If I understood him aright, the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) believes that the House has a moral obligation to perpetuate the Agricultural Training Board because it has been set up, the fact of its being set up giving it a vested right to continue in existence even if a quite disproportionate amount of the revenue which it raises is consumed in winding its own clock rather than in performing its training function. The balance of opinion today is that that will be an inherent characteristic of the Board in the foreseeable future. My right hon. Friend the Member for Granthan (Mr. Godber) gave the reasons. The industry does not lend itself to this type of training structure. That is why we say that the time to alter the structure and get rid of the Board is


now rather than when it has collected and spent still more money.
If it is part of our national policy, as I believe it is, to go in for an import substitution programme in a large way, producing at home more of the food that we eat, and if we accept, as we surely must, that the greatest single barrier to that effort is lack of working capital within farming, we must recognise that by the amount which we tap off money for purposes like the Agricultural Training Board we sabotage the expansion programme.
We have, therefore, an objective test. It is not just a question of whether we feel in our bones that the money collected by the Board is being well spent. The question to ask is whether we are satisfied that there is no way in which the money could be better spent. What answer can we give? We shall be in a better position to know after Wednesday. No one will be more surprised than I if the answer after Wednesday is that such an enormous injection of cash flow has been put into the industry that it can meet the import substitution programme to the tune of £220 million a year at least, the figure set by the "Little Neddy", and that it will not be hampered by shortage of cash. If that is the position after Wednesday, I shall be delighted. I shall gladly write, in my own hand, a letter of fulsome apology to the Under-Secretary of State, saying, "I was completely wrong on Monday. I had no idea that the Government would make such a wise Price Review so that, at long last, the industry is adequately capitalised", and I shall mean every word of it.
However, I think, and the hon. Gentleman knows, that that will not happen and the industry will still, after Wednesday, be quite unable to meet the target which the Government have set it because of cash shortage. There is, therefore, a question of priorities involved. What is the best use we can make of this money?
I come now to one or two points of detail on which I should be glad to have specific answers. Under the heading, "Assessment Notices", Article 4(2) provides:
Any amount assessed in accordance with Article 3(5) of this Order shall be rounded down to the nearest ten shillings.

Presumably, it can be rounded down to 10s. below or it can be rounded off to the nearest 10s. For example, will 19s. become 10s. or £1? The wording is ambiguous, and I suspect that whoever drafted that Article used the expression "rounded down" instead of "rounded off" without appreciating that the result was ambiguous. I ask for a definite reply about that. I say that for an additional and altruistic reason. If there is ambiguity there will be a greater volume of appeals, and no one will be confident of their outcome. We should always be definitive in these matters, if possible, rather than leave area for appeal.
Thinking further on the question of appeals, I ask that the sensible thing be done at this point by dropping the thousands of applications to enforce the collection of the levy through the courts. Civil proceedings at the moment are constipated; the time lag for civil cases in our courts is far too long. This is common knowledge. It causes justice to be tarnished. If there are to be tens of thousands of civil proceedings for collecting debt under this pitiful Order and its predecessor, substantial inconvenience and injustice will result right across the board for people who are in no way concerned with the argument about it. Where there is a general feeling of injustice, as there is in this case, for heaven's sake let us not have the argument fought out to the disadvantage of everyone in the United Kingdom who is seeking redress of grievance through civil proceedings in our courts. That is what will happen unless an administrative decision is taken that those tens of thousands of cases should be put right back in the cause lists. If that happens, the Board will not get its money anyway as month succeeds month.

Mr. Gardner: If the House rejects the Prayer, is the hon. Gentleman arguing that the cases pending should all be dropped? Surely, that would be grossly unfair, not least to those who have accepted that this is now the law of the land and paid the levy?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: That is a fair point. What I suggest is that the Board should be wound up and that all the outstanding uncollected levies should be written off, in the same way as a firm writes off debts. There is certainly an excellent case for saying that it would be


equitable that those who have paid levies should have them refunded. I agree that that logically and fairly follows, but I doubt whether it is a form of fairness that would appeal to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who has quite a substantial say in these matters.
Several of my hon. Friends are waiting to contribute to the debate, so I shall end as I began. First, standing on its own feet, the Board is not justified in collecting the sums that it collects, because the services it renders in respect of them is not commensurate to the effort of collecting them. Second, this is not the best use that can be made of the money when the industry is desperately short of working cash to carry out the Government's expansion programme. Third, there is no shame in a change of mind by people who once supported the introduction of a training board, any more than it was a shameful deed, which it was not, to dissolve the Tomato and Cucumber Marketing Board. My hon. Friend also rightly referred to the Egg Marketing Board. Let us not be ashamed to say that this is not a suitable structure for education and training for the agriculture, horticulture and forestry industries.
This is not to say, nor should it be represented as saying, that such training is not necessary. It is necessary and desirable, and the nation as a whole will benefit from it. But the general principle of economy is to make the best and most efficient use of existing resources. We should make the best and most efficient use not only of the resources for training and education which have already been mentioned, but, for instance, of the young farmers movement, which has not been referred to. Many bodies contribute to this, and what we want is a cohesive pattern of training which does not entail an extremely expensive central administrative organisation.
Let us not end up with a system which results in those who are worst off in the agricultural industry, the small farmers who employ no labour, having to finance training schemes from which they derive no benefit and which assist their competitors. This must be against all principles of equity., except in general taxation.
For those reasons, I shall have no hesitation in supporting the Prayer in the Division Lobby.

6.14 p.m.

Miss J. M. Quennell: My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) began his interesting and constructive speech very tellingly with the valid point that although it may be less profitable per acre from the point of view of output the smaller farm managed and worked by the proprietor is very often the most intensive unit in our very varied agriculture.
I found my hon. Friend's contribution, following that of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), particularly interesting in that the hon. Gentleman, though he claimed to be a townsman with country yearnings, had highlighted the difficulty in which agriculture is placed. He said that the lack of a promotion ladder within the industry was very obvious, but that perhaps it was not such a problem for farmers employing 60 or so men. I have an agricultural constituency producing practically everything from hops to strawberries, but I do not believe that a single farmer in my constituency employs 60 men, or even half that number. I should be very interested to know how many farmers in the country employ 60, or anywhere near that number.
Here we return to the general difficulty brought out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) that the industry is one of the largest in the country with the widest possible geographical spread. No other industry has productive units of all sizes, stretched from Land's End to John o'Groats, on all sorts of soils, in varying climates and with varying levels of output, structure and organisation. That is the industry's difficulty, which my right hon. Friend foresaw in 1964 when he was responsible for the Industrial Training Act. I remember taking part in the Committee stage upstairs. Agriculture was then exempted from the provisions of that Act. It was recognised as being dissimilar from all the other industries, whose concentrated areas of output lend themselves to easier organisation for training purposes.
One or two hon. Members have suggested that the opposition to this and


the previous Order has been inspired to some extent. I do not think that that is entirely correct. It is true that the initiative for the establishment of a Board came from the N.F.U., but not all farmers are members of the N.F.U. Some counties did not feel that they had been consulted as fully as they should have been, and in any case where they were consulted I think that the full practical difficulty of implementing the structure was not really appreciated.
Most hon. Members have talked about small farmers employing only one man. In my constituency there are 250-acre farms run by the farmer and one man. Here one faces the problem of release. A journey of about 20 miles is involved, and public transport is not the easiest thing to get hold of.
Nobody in the industry really foresaw what would happen if there was a training board. With a board wedded to the structure of existing boards suitable for other industries, it inevitably followed that one had to have an administratively top-heavy structure. It is unfortunate that the existing Agricultural Training Board has developed as it has, but it is impossible to organise a board over such a huge industry, spread so disparately all over the country, without having a top-heavy administrative structure.

Mr. Gardner: The hon. Lady says that the industry is small-scale and widespread. Does she recall the setting up of a training board for distribution and one for food, drink and tobacco? Surely those industries are equally widely spread and also involve small units.

Miss Quennell: The hon. Member is right in saying that they are widespread, but they are concentrated in urban selling points. That is the difference. I do not accept his argument.

Mr. Hazell: Does not the hon. Lady agree that the majority of the training undertaken and to be undertaken by the Board is on farms and not at institutes 20 or 30 miles away?

Miss Quennell: That was one of the more unfortunate interjections, because the courses which the Board started in the early days failed dismally to impress the farmers. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) shakes his head. Per-

haps the situation is different in Norfolk, and I do not wish to join in that war. But it is a fact that in the early days of the Board the courses which the Board's officers put on failed dismally to impress the farmers who went to find out what it was all about.
The first levy was introduced at the time of the Selective Employment Tax, which farmers regarded as an interest-free loan for the Government. That was cut. So far 26,000 farmers have refused to pay the levy—about half the farmers in agriculture. The Board will not work in those circumstances. Unless it gets the support of an industry, a training board cannot work. None of the other training boards has had quite such an unfortunate reception.

Mr. Hazell: rose—

Miss Quennell: I am sorry but I cannot give way again, for time is short, other hon. Members wish to speak and I wish to conclude my speech.
I am glad to see the return after some absence of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. This is a debate on agriculture. Earlier we had a brief visit from one of the Ministers for Education, and we have a Minister from the Department of Employment and Productivity. It is unfortunate that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture has been absent for much of the debate.
This highlights one of the problems. Agriculture is the only industry with its own Minister, and it is wrong that its training arrangements are not supervised by the Minister responsible for it. Every hon. Member who has spoken has appreciated the problem of organising training for this particularly awkward industry. All the other training boards come under the Department of Employment and Productivity, and probably they have obtained the know-how to enable them to deal with the problem, but the formula when applied to agriculture fails dismally.
I want the Government to announce a complete rearrangement starting at the top. Agricultural training should be taken from the Department which hits the headlines whenever we have strikes and placed under the Ministry responsible


for agriculture. Training facilities are necessary, but the Board is unlikely to secure them and it will not meet the needs of the industry or of the country as it is constructed. The industry's training problems could have been solved if training had been offered to the industry on a county basis, using facilities which already exist in the many institutes, colleges of further education and technical colleges. We could have had a much more economical and effective form of training—far cheaper for the industry and for the country. I await with interest the Government's views on the subject. If they do not offer a solution along these lines, I shall have pleasure in supporting my hon. Friends in the Division Lobby.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: There is little time left for debate before we have the pleasure of hearing the reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity.
First, I deeply regret that we have found it necessary to have such a debate, for I had hoped that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary would have learned from previous debates what was the feeling not only in the House but throughout the country on this subject. The hon. Member has put himself in a very difficult position. It is obvious that the industry does not support the proposals which have been put forward by the Training Board. Moreover, the Board will before long have 26,000 summonses on its hands if it wishes to obtain payment of the levy. No Board can succeed which starts with such bad relations with the industry. I had hoped that the Under-Secretary would realise that some time ago and would not introduce another Order and another levy. It is a pity that he did not do so.
The solutions which have been put forward in the House for winding up the Board or changing its composition and the way in which it is run must be listened to very seriously by the Minister. The existing Board cannot and does not command respect, authority and confidence in the industry. Even the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) must recognise that. That being the case, the Under-Secretary should cut his losses and start again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) put forward a sensible solution of a committee or board examining in the counties, at local level, how money should be spent to improve the existing educational and training facilities to raise the standards of training of the farming community. Improving the training of the farming community is our common aim. Farmers accept it. They want their workers to be highly skilled and properly trained. But the present Board is not the way to do it. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) and my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell) rightly made a valid point about the small farmer who in many cases has one employee and will be paying the levy to improve the work force of the larger farmers.
I beg the Under-Secretary of State to realise that there is a great deal of un-happiness with the scheme, not only in the House but in the country. He must have the industry supporting him to succeed, which means that he must start thinking again. He need have no feeling of pride in the matter. The Prime Minister spends most of his time changing his mind, and there is, therefore, no need for the hon. Gentleman to feel shame if he changes his mind or recommends his right hon. Friend to change her mind.
Let us stop the nonsense which involves our having this type of debate through trying to impose on the industry a Board which is not wanted and, I must say, has people running it who are no longer acceptable to the industry. Let the hon. Member realise that he must start again. If he does, the industry and we on this side of the House will be behind him.

6.29 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Roy Hattersley): The opposition to the Order both inside and outside the House has ranged over a wide spectrum of proposals about what should happen to the Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry Training Board in the immediate future. At one extreme we have those who have criticisms of the Board and at the other extreme there are those with the simple proposal that the Board should be wound up.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, Southwest (Mr. Hawkins), if he will forgive me a biblical quotation, went so far as to ask me to organise things in such a way that it should be as if the Board "had never been ". The suggestion was that, somehow, history should be rolled back for 18 months to when the Board was contemplated rather than created.
The position of the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) on that spectrum is not exactly precise, and perhaps intentionally so. But I appreciate that his criticism of the Board was advanced along the lines of what I describe as the high argument against it: that is, the certain opposition to it in the industry, its apparent unacceptability to the industry; the need for all boards eventually to be accepted by their industry; and the problems that this Board certainly has, because of the structure of the industry which it serves, in obtaining that acceptability.
But as well as the high argument, we have heard the low argument. We have heard that the Board is superfluous because training is already adequate. We have heard that the levy is an unacceptable burden on farmers. We have heard that the existence of such a Board is almost an impertinence, an infringement of the farmers' right to make their own decisions about training and not pay for it if they so choose. The most extraordinary argument of all was that the Board should be wound up because it was extravagant and wasteful.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West was the chief proponent of the extravagant and wasteful argument, and he typified other proponents of the same point of view. There is a tendency to make unsubstantiated allegations about the extravagance of the Board and to offer them to the House and the country as though they were Holy Writ. I can think of nothing easier to say of any institution, public or private, than that it is extravagant in its use of manpower, building and property. But it is not an argument which, in respect of this Board, I have heard substantiated either this afternoon or at any other time.
One of the other characteristics of these critics is their absolute obsession with trivia. One of the claims made by them

to justify the disbandment of the Board is that it writes to Members of Parliament to say what it is doing and how it is doing it. It is said that one of the Board's solicitors has made a clerical error and has issued summonses which should not have been issued. These typify the paucity of some of the arguments we have had not only this afternoon, but during the last year or 18 months.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Surely the hon. Gentleman does not say that the fact that the Board's solicitor issued a great many summonses to many people, and thereby caused distress, is trivial. He cannot really mean that. Surely he will think again.

Mr. Hattersley: I am not saying, and I do not think that the House has been told, that a great many summonses have been issued. We have been told that an error occurred. What I am saying is that if all institutions which made errors of that sort deserved disbandment, there would be very few institutions in Britain or Europe.
I come to the second argument which I regard as classified among the least legitimate criticisms of the Board—the financial burden which it places on farmers. Both the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) drew attention to the simple financial penalties involved in the Board's existence. The hon. Member for Tiverton went so far as to suggest that its existence might be imperilling the capitalisation prospects of the industry.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I never said that. I said that the hon. Gentleman had to decide in an order of priorities whether this was the best use of that sum of money. I never suggested that the money collected by the Board would capitalise the industry for its expansion programme. If the hon. Gentleman had listened more closely to what I said, he would have heard the figure I gave as being necessary for that.

Mr. Hattersley: HANSARD tomorrow will show the relationship which the hon. Gentleman drew between those two elements.
Irrespective of that, let me give the exact extent of the financial burden we


are asking the House to allow the Board to impose on the industry. We are imposing no burden whatever on the farmer who has no employees. Some comment and concern have been expressed on behalf of those farmers, although they are in no way affected by the proposal. But from other farmers we are asking for a levy of £3 10s. a year per worker.
Let us assume, as is increasingly untrue, that the farmer receives nothing in return for that £3 10s. A substantial number of farmers are receiving training grants in compensation, but, even if we take the increasingly untypical farmer who receives nothing, he is asked to pay a gross sum of Is. 4d. a week for each of his employees. Since that Is. 4d. is deductible against tax, the burden that the Board imposes on agriculture is 10d. per week per employee. I would have thought that that was not a very great sum to pay in terms of the benefits which, as I hope I can show to the House, will accrue from the Board's existence.
I must deal with the suggestion that it is an impertinence that the Board should be imposed on an unwilling industry. What is meant by that is that it is an impertinence that the Board should be imposed on unwilling employers. But agriculture, like any other industry, is more than the employers; it is the employees as well. There is no doubt that the view of the workers, as expressed by their union and individually, is that the Board is needed and is providing for them services they are entitled to obtain.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman says that the National Union of Agricultural Workers supports the Board. Does he know the percentage of farmworkers in the union?

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman would tell the House that that was hardly relevant, because he has said that the National Farmers' Union is not representative in all it does, because it sometimes disagrees with opinions at the grass roots, among the rank and file. The National Union of Agricultural Workers corporately has expressed support for the Board, and that is the best test we can have of the industry's opinion, in addition to the response to training courses, about which I hope to speak.
Before doing so, may I turn to another argument against the Board, which is that training in the industry is already adequate and that there is no need for a levy to finance the Board? Almost in-invariably, that contention is mounted side by side with the argument that somehow and in some way the Board was created to achieve the status of competition with agricultural colleges run by local education authorities. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The work of the Board and the work of the local education institutions, and the private colleges, for that matter, are essentially complementary rather than competitive. Between the numerous debates which we have had on this subject, I have visited a series of agricultural colleges, and I have yet to meet a principal who did not regard the Board as something which enhanced the work which he was doing. I have yet to meet a principal who did not believe that the encouragement which the Board was giving in terms of the advocacy of greater training and the incentive of the levy and grant system was encouraging farmers to take up places at colleges which had been vacant for far too long.
In previous debates, I have been told that many colleges of education and agricultural colleges of one sort or another had spare capacity. One of the things that the Board is certainly doing is to encourage farmers, by persuasion or by grant and levy, to take up these places, and that has been the message passed to me at a series of colleges.
There are other examples which I must give in an attempt to refute the argument that the Board is superfluous because training was always possible and already available. I have three examples of provision made by the Board for training facilities which did not exist before the Board was created and which do so now, with the enthusiastic support of the industry and its workers. I take the example of apprenticeships.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) reminded the House that the Board had now taken responsibility for apprenticeships in his industry. He will know that the number of young men going into apprenticeships in England and Wales in agriculture was


almost static for four or five years. Between the time when the Board assumed responsibility for apprentice training and the end of January, there was an increase of apprentice intake of almost 30 per cent I have no doubt that the efforts of the Board's staff and the incentive of the levy and grant schemes helped to bring that about.
Similarly, the Board, meeting the demand of farmers, has been responsible for organising training schemes on the farms themselves, an essential element in an industry where it is naturally difficult for operatives to leave their work to go to courses. During the past year, the Board has sponsored 120 new schemes of that sort involving over 6,000 workers, schemes which would not have been there but for the existence of the Board.
I give a third example. I take the example of group training schemes, which the right hon. Member for Grantham rightly said in his Second Reading speech on the Bill was a particular necessity in industries with a large number of small enterprises. Group training schemes, 14 of which involve 102 businesses, have already been created in the industry and another 36 are at the planning stage-again, directly attributable to the work of the Training Board.

Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman refers to training schemes on farms. Does he not realise that it is just as far for 19 out of 20 of the workers to go to one farm as it is for the whole lot to travel to an educational establishment or college? The distance is just the same. They have to be brought together to that one farm.

Mr. Hattersley: If the hon. Member thinks about that, he will conclude that that might well be so, but, on the other hand, it might well not be so and, therefore, it does not make much of a contribution to our debate.
What, I hope, the hon. Member will accept as a contribution to our debate is that of the 900 short training courses which the Board has organised, 500, or rather more than half, have been organised in conjunction with colleges of agriculture and colleges of further education—again, I hope, a potent demonstration that the colleges do not regard the

Board as a competing force but view it as something with which they should work, to the betterment of the industry as a whole.
Having said those things, I could not deny, nor have I ever denied, that the acceptance of the Board by the industry, an acceptance which is at present notably absent, is something which must be achieved if we are to have a successful training scheme for the industry organised by the Board. The right hon. Member for Grantham regarded that as one of the three necessary principles, and, of course, he is right. One can only understand the relationship of the Board and the industry, however, if one considers the Board's origins and history.
The Board was begun at the request of the National Farmers' Union and the National Union of Agricultural Workers. It is quite wrong to say that having received that request, my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Labour created the Board in haste. As is usually the case when a new training board is set up, long discussions proceeded with representatives of the industry about its scope and extent, about who should be included and what should be excluded. In the case of the Agricultural Training Board, those negotiations went on for over a year.
It seems to me extraordinary that during that year when my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Labour was discussing these matters with the N.F.U., not a word should have got out to the county branches and to the individual farmers. I am sure that it did. I am sure, however, that the acceptance of the Board, which might well have come about, was in many ways hindered by the foot-and-mouth epidemic, to which the right hon. Member for Grantham referred and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North also referred.
The foot-and-mouth epidemic came at a time when the Board intended to demonstrate what it was intended to do and what it could do. It came at a time when the Board should have begun its work of explanation and at a time which could not have been more to the disadvantage of the Board in making itself understood and accepted.
An acknowledgment of the special problems that the foot-and-mouth epidemic created for training in the industry was the additional grant which we made to ensure that the industry should not pay a disproportionate share of the costs of the Board at a time when the Board could not operate fully. It was undoubtedly that unfortunate beginning which, in many ways, prejudiced parts of the industry against its existence.
The right hon. Member for Grantham rightly drew the attention of the House to some of the inherent difficulties in organising a board for the industry. All boards organising in and for industries which have very many small firms within their boundaries, and certainly all boards organised for industries which have remote constituent firms, meet special problems. Agriculture is a concentration of those problems. All of us always knew that to be the case, but it never seemed to me or my right hon. Friends—

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: rose—

Mr. Hattersley: I have given way a lot and I have only a few minutes left.
It never seemed to us that that was a reason for not attempting to organise training in the industry. Indeed, one might argue that the special problems of the industry—for example, the number of small farms and the number of remote establishments—were an argument in favour of producing a system by which training could be provided on a group basis and on a common basis.
Certainly, one of the main objects that the Board has borne in mind throughout its existence is the special problems of the small company. It is in no small measure the problems of the small company which have caused some of the administrative expenses about which we hear so much. The decision to go out into the counties with a staff who could help the small farm and assist the small unit was an extra administrative cost. This is one of the things which, I hope, the Board's critics will bear in mind when I turn to the amount of money which the Board has necessarily had to spend on administration.
It has already been stated this afternoon that total administrative costs for

the Board in the year under review are likely to amount to rather than more than £400,000. The right hon. Member for Grantham asked for the estimated percentage by which that would be in excess of 20 per cent. I give a figure which initially will, I am sure, make some hon. Members opposite shy with counterfeit amazement. The percentage will, in fact, be about 30.
I have, however, to tell the House that that ratio of administration costs as a total percentage of income is a bogus comparison, for two reasons. First, a substantial part of that £400,000 spent on administration is spent on, on behalf of and as result of those defaulters who did not pay, who have refused to pay and whose every application for additional payment has meant additional expense to the Board. The expense of the corporate defaulting is estimated by the Board at something approaching £100,000.
May I remind the House that as a result of discussions held between the Board and the National Farmers' Union, part of which I chaired, the original levy proposal that the Board had in mind—£6—was reduced to £3 10s., yet very few reductions were possible in administrative costs.
Had the Board gone ahead with its original levy proposals, the percentage of levy used for administration would automatically have been cut by 50 per cent. and we would have been talking about a figure of between 10 and 15 per cent. rather than 30 per cent. What I am saying is that to compare the total levy with the percentage of that levy spent on administration is an entirely bogus comparison, because it varies with the nature of the industry and with the size of the levy, as well as the character of the prudence which, I am sure, the Board is exercising.

Mr. John Wells: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hattersley: I think not. I have literally five minutes left to me and I must cover a great deal of ground. (HON. MEMBERS: "Ten minutes."] I assure the House that I have less than 10 minutes.
At that stage, when the Board was first issuing its levy, only a handful of extremists were proselytising against the


Board. They were basically the anti-training levy committee who, at that time, the N.F.U. was describing as the Luddites of the industry.
But there was a growth of opposition to the Board in this House. Therefore, in February last year talks began, initially informally, between the N.F.U. and my Ministry to find a basis on which the Board could become more acceptable. The principal result of those discussions was a reduction in the levy from £6 to £3 10s. That reduction, which I certainly sanctioned and in many ways promoted, was not promoted in the interests of training, but in the interests of industrial harmony. The reduction was made in the hope that the Board would thereby become more acceptable to the industry.
Looking back, that may have been a mistake, because one result of that reduction was that the Board was not able to do many things that it wanted and needed to do. One result was that hon. Members, like the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West, were able to come here and say, "We have heard far too little of the Board". Had that reduction not been made at the suggestion of the industry in the hope of making the industry more reconciled to the Board's existence, I very much doubt whether he would have been able to say that.
The £3 10s. package was recommended by the N.F.U. to its Council in May last year. That proposal for the future of the Board was carried by the council by a small majority. Notwithstanding that, the N.F.U. felt that the size of the majority made it impossible for it to support its continued existence and negotiations were reopened. The negotiations went on throughout the summer until, in the second week in September, the N.F.U. asked us to consider alternative methods of financing the Board. While that consideration was still going on, the N.F.U. notified my right hon. Friend that it wished the Board to continue no longer as it was sure that it should be suspended.
At that time my right hon. Friend sent to the N.F.U. the letter to which reference has been made, saying that her decision about the future of the Board must be based on a number of criteria, not the least important of which was the

attitude of the workers in the industry. The discussions which followed have gone on since, culminating with the meeting that I had with the N.F.U. on 10th February, about which the right hon. Member for Grantham has asked me specific questions.
The right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to what he described as the inadequacies of the fertiliser subsidy as a means of paying for the Board. I accept that it has many inadequacies. It is certainly much less equitable than the levy and grant system and it is certainly much less related to manpower needs than the levy and grant system. If the industry wants a method of payment which is related to those things it has to choose the method designed by the right hon. Gentleman to be related to those things—the levy and grant system.
The fertiliser subsidy, with all its imperfections, was offered as something which the industry seemed to prefer, something which was more related to the proposals of the industry: that the money should be collected without applying the levy and grant system operated in other industries. The industry must decide whether that system of funding, with all its admitted imperfections, commends itself to the industry. If it does not, the industry can return to the levy and grant system which is in many ways preferable, which is in all ways more likely to encourage training, and which will only be suspended, if the industry wishes that it should be suspended with such enthusiasm that the introduction of the fertiliser scheme will mean that the Board becomes acceptable to the industry.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman stipulated two other requirements of training in this industry as well as the acceptability of the Board to the industry as a whole. First, that there should be an expansion and improvement in training. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he is in favour of training. Of course he is. Secondly, there is the question of the obligation on the industry to pay for its own training.
I must tell the right hon. Gentleman something which I suspect he knows: that many of the critics of the Board do not subscribe to that third principle. One thing which bedevils consideration of the Board is the belief that what training goes on in the industry should in


some way be paid for not by the industry directly, but by the Government, by the education services or by local authorities. We cannot accept that contention. We can accept that the N.F.U., which describes itself as having gained a good deal of ground—and I do not argue with that contention—has the prospect of putting to its members that the fertiliser subsidy is in some ways a movement towards the method of financing which it prefers. It has the alternative of returning to the levy and grant system and it is discussing those alternatives now. It is discussing them against the background of a Board which has now collected 70 per cent. of its levy and almost 90 per cent. of its levy in Scotland—figures which I am advised compare almost, if not overwhelmingly, favourably with collection problems that other boards in agriculture have met since the war.
The industry must realise that the Government feel that they have obligations to expand and improve training within agriculture. Nobody this afternoon has offered a way of doing it which conforms to the right hon. Gentleman's three principles, yet does not involve an industrial training board, albeit by some other name.
I believe that the proposals we have now put to the N.F.U. may result in acceptance by it, and I certainly hope a growing acceptance by the industry. Knowing that a conciliatory manner is not one of my principal virtues, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am anxious to be conciliatory this afternoon, not because I should regret or be embarrassed by a change of plan and a change of direction, but because I believe that this Board is in the interests of the industry. I believe that we are at a time when the Board may achieve acceptance by the industry. We are certainly at a time when the N.F.U. is considering its attitude towards it. I believe that it would do the Board and the industry a great deal of harm if criticism of it was seen this afternoon to be split on something approaching party lines.
We have already made many concessions to N.F.U. opinion. We intend to

continue to do so. We certainly hope that the fertiliser subsidy, or the alternative of levy and grant, will result in N.F.U. acceptance. In that knowledge and in the assurance that our main objective is to get the Board working in harmony with the industry, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not feel that he must divide the House.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Godber: When I moved the Prayer this afternoon I hoped that the Under-Secretary would be able to respond to the appeal that I made to him. He has tried to answer a number of the points and he has told us he has tried to be conciliatory. I am grateful for that, but I fear that he has not gone far enough.
The hon. Gentleman has talked about administration and given the best possible presentation that could be given about that; but, even so, in whatever way we interpret what he said, the degree of administration is very high indeed.
The hon. Gentleman is still posing to the industry an impossible alternative: either it has the grant and levy system or the fertiliser subsidy. That is not necessary. Plenty of other ways are more equitable than the fertiliser subsidy. Even if he insists on everything else, he has no right to impose on the industry something which he acknowledges is unfair. It can be done through the Price Review, in other ways.
I will not continue longer. I must advise my hon. Friends that what the Under-Secretary has said is not sufficient to prevent me from asking the House to divide.

Question put:—
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Industrial Training Levy (Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry) Order 1969 (S.I., 1969, No. 155), dated 10th February, 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th Febraury, be annulled.

The House divided: Ayes 185, Noes 261.

Division No. 119.1
AYES
[6.59 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Biffen, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Balniel, Lord
Biggs-Davison, John


Astor, John
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Black, Sir Cyril


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)
Batsford, Brian
Blaker, Peter


Awdry, Daniel
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Body, Richard




Bossom, Sir Clive
Hiley, Joseph
Percival, Ian


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hirst, Geoffrey
Peyton, John


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pink, R. Bonner


Braine, Bernard
Holland, Philip
Pounder, Rafton


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hooson, Emlyn
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hordern, Peter
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Prior, J. M. L.


Bryan, Paul
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Francis


Bullus, Sir Eric
Iremonger, T. L.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Burden, F. A.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Carlisle, Mark
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Channon, H. P. G.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridsdale, Julian


Clark, Henry
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Clegg, Walter
Kitson, Timothy
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Corfield, F. V.
Lambton, Viscount
Royle, Anthony


Costain, A. P.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lane, David
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Crouch, David
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Scott, Nicholas


Currie, G. B. H.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Dance, James
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Silvester, Frederick


d'Avigdor-Goidsmid, Sir Henry
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Sinclair, Sir George


Dean, Paul
Lubbock, Eric
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Speed, Keith


Digby, Simon Wingfle'd
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stainton, Keith


Doughty, Charles
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Drayson, G. B.
McMaster Stanley
Summers sir Spencer


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
McMaster, Stanley
summers, Sir Spencer


Eden, Sir John
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Tapsell, Peter


Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne. N.)
McNair-wilson, Patrick
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Emery, Peter
Maddan, Martin
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Carthcart)


Foster, Sir John
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Marten, Neil
Temple, John M.


Gibson-Watt, David
Maude, Angus
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Gilmour, lan (Norfolk, C.)
Mawby, Ray
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Glyn, Sir Richard
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Waddington, David


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Miscampbell, Norman
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Goodhart, Philip
Monro, Hector
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Goodhew, Victor
Montgomery, Fergus
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Gower, Raymond
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wall, Patrick


Grant, Anthony
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Ward, Dame Irene


Gresham Cooke, R.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Weatherill, Bernard


Gurden, Harold
Murton, Oscar
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Neave, Airey
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nott, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Onslow, Cranley
Wylie, N. R.


Hastings, Stephen
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian



Hawkins, Paul
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hay, John
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Jasper More and


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Mr. Reginald Eyre.


Heseltine, Michael
Peel, John





NOES


Albu, Austen
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Alldritt, Walter
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Delargy, Hugh


Anderson, Donald
Buchan, Norman
Dell, Edmund


Archer, Peter
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Dewar, Donald


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Diamond, Rt Hn. John


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Cant, R. B.
Dickens, James


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Carmichael, Neil
Dobson, Ray


Barnes, Michael
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Doig, Peter


Barnett, Joel
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Driberg, Tom


Beaney, Alan
Coe, Denis
Dunn, James A.


Bence, Cyril
Coleman, Donald
Dunnett, Jack


Bidwell, Sydney
Conlan, Bernard
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)


Bishop, E. S.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)


Blackburn, F.
Crawshaw, Richard
Eadie, Alex


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Cronin, John
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Boston, Terence
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Ellis, John


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
English, Michael


Boyden, James
Dalyell, Tam
Ennals, David


Bradley, Tom
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Faulds, Andrew


Brooks, Edwin
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Ferryhough, E.


Broughton, Dr. A. D, D.
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Finch, Harold







Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Pentland, Norman


Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (lslington, E.)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Forrester, John
Lipton, Marcus
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Fowler, Gerry
Lomas, Kenneth
Probert, Arthur


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Loughlin, Charles
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Freeson, Reginald
Luard, Evan
Randall, Harry


Gardner, Tony
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rankin, John


Garrett, W. E.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rees, Merlyn


Ginsburg, David
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McBride, Neil
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
McCann, John
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Gregory, Arnold
MacColl, James
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Grey, Charles (Durham)
MacDermot, Niall
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Macdonald, A. H.
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Lianelly)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mackie, John
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maclennan, Robert
Roebuck, Roy


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Rogers George (Kensington, N.)


Hamling, William
MacPherson, Malcolm



Hannan, William
MacPherson, Malcolm
Rose, Paul


Harper, Joseph
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Harrison Walter (Wakefield)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Harrison, walter (Wakefield)
Mallalieu, E. L (Brigg)
Sheldon, Robert


Haseldine, Norman




Hattersley, Roy
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Hazel, Bert
Manuel, Archie
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mapp, Charles
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Heifer, Eric S.
Marks, Kenneth
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Henig, Stanley
Marquand, David
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Herbison, Rt. Hn, Margaret
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Hilton, W. S.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Silverman, Julius


Hobden, Dennis
Mayhew, Christopher
Skeffington, Arthur


Hooley, Frank
Meillsh, Rt. Hn. Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mendelson, J. J.
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Mikardo, Ian
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Millan, Bruce
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Hoy, James
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Huckfield, Leslie
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Tinn, James


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Molloy, William
Tuck, Raphael


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Moonman, Eric
Urwin, T. w.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Varley, Eric G.


Hunter, Adam
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Hynd, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Wallace, George


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Moyle, Roland
Weitzman, David


Janner, Sir Barnett
Murray, Albert
Wellbeloved, James


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Neal, Harold
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Newens, Stan
Whitaker, Ben


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)
Oakes, Gordon
Wilkins, W. A.


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Ogden, Eric
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Orme, Stanley
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Oswald, Thomas
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Padley, Walter
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Winnick, David


Kelley, Richard
Paget, R. T.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Kenyon, Clifford
Palmer, Arthur
Woof, Robert


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Wyatt, Woodrow


Lawson, George
Park, Trevor



Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)
Mr. Ian L. Evans and


Lee, John (Reading)
Pavitt, Laurence
Mr. J. D. Concannon.

It being after Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND

MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: At the beginning of this first of our two debates on Private Business, may I announce that I have not selected, for the debate on the Brighton Corporation Bill, the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes)—
That the Bill be read a Second time upon this day six months.
nor, for the debate on the York Corporation Bill, the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison)—
That the Bill be read a Second time upon this day six months.
This will not limit the debate in any way.
Further, I have not selected the Instruction in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North—
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to have regard to the Notice put on the cliff face by Brighton Borough Council at the instance of the Nature Conservancy as a site of special scientific interest under section 23 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, and to ensure that no new road authorised by the Bill interferes with or restricts public access to the cliffs or the undercliff walk or the right which the public have hitherto enjoyed upon the undercliff walk or the adjacent foreshore and beaches.
The points which are made in that Instruction may be argued by the hon. and learned Member or anyone else as reasons for opposing the Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Hobden: I support the Second Reading of the Bill, and, in view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, which will allow some wide-ranging debate on the other issues, it will be pertinent to explain why the Bill is before us.
I want to say firmly at once that it is not in order to provide a marina at Brighton, just in case the issues get blurred during the debate. The question

of the marina was decided over a year ago, when the Brighton Marina Act, 1968, was approved by both Houses of Parliament after it had been considered by a Select Committee. But it would be as well to recall that, even before those events, the Minister of Housing, in 1966, approved the provision of a marina after a nine-day public local hearing into the—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not do what he said that he would not do. We are not discussing the Brighton Marina Act now. That has already been passed.

Mr. Hobden: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You have made the very point that I was trying to make. I was not saying that disrespectfully, but only to dispel the misconceptions which have arisen.
We are concerned in this Bill with the question of adequate road facilities to fit in with the marina scheme. The Minister himself, when the Bill was being discussed, insisted that the additional road facilities should be provided in connection with the project. Section 41 of the Brighton Marina Act insists that they should be provided. The forward planning of the Brighton Corporation has provided for a road system in this area by about 1980, so such a system would be necessary whether the marina had been built or not. Although the marina has not made it necessary, it is using the local authority's original plans.
But the question arose in the original Brighton Marina Act of who should be involved in the powers of compulsory acquisition of the property which was necessary for the provision of access roads. This is what our argument is all about. The marina company itself had sought these powers, but the Select Committee in 1968 struck them out because it felt that a commercial enterprise should not be granted compulsory powers. But the Committee added that it would have no objections if Brighton Corporation sought similar powers. Therefore, the Bill seeks those powers, which would be exerciseable by Brighton Corporation and not by the Brighton Marina Company. This is not an unusual exercise, because a great deal of commercial development takes place for which highways are provided by the appropriate highways authorities: it has happened before in Brighton.
The Bill is being used in two ways by opponents of the scheme to obstruct the marina project itself. I am not sure whether, in view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I am in order in mentioning this, but my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) has been foremost in his obstruction of and opposition to the marina. We know that hon. Members, in pursuance of their Parliamentary duties, are permitted to obstruct Private Bills, but it is a principle which should be used with responsibility and it is about time that my hon. and learned Friend stated his interest in this matter.
In addition, by means of the Order Paper, my hon. and learned Friend has regaled us with some high-sounding claims in Motion No. 112, which has a bearing or this—
That this House is of opinion that British beaches and foreshores are, and should remain, public property to which the public have, and should continue to have, free access at all times and that those sections of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and the Brighton Marina Act 1968 which give local planning authorities power to interfere with, impede or diminish in any way these public rights, should be amended forthwith in such a way as to preserve intact and completely those public rights.
My hon and learned Friend purports to claim concern for the coastlines and foreshores of this country, as if the rest of us who favour the marina and all that goes with it are in favour of despoiling our national heritage, but, as I said on Second Reading of the Brighton Marina Act, we are not destroying a heritage but creating one. Some idea of how the signatories of that Motion have been misled—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, we are not debating that Motion.

Mr. Hobden: I understand that, Mr. Speaker, but hon. Members will know the position to which I refer. I do not know whether other speakers will raise this matter, but this is part of the background which I feared could be used to obstruct this scheme.
If one examined public opinion in Brighton an the tortured history of the marina project, one could not deny that it has been the essence of a democratic progression which culminated in the biggest town poll which this country has

ever known, when, after all the discussions and arguments, the proposals set out in the Bill were overwhelmingly supported by the people of Brighton by a majority of almost two to one. In spite of that, the opponents still continue to blur the issue in what I regard as a completely unreasonable manner.
I am uncertain of how wide-ranging I might have been allowed to be in dealing with this issue, but one thing which all hon. Members have been told is that there would be compulsory purchase by the Corporation of houses, businesses and a graveyard to assist commercial development. This is completely untrue. What we are trying to do is get this road scheme, at the Minister's behest; this is not an unusual problem in town planning. There are 22 houses affected in this area, and the owners of only seven have petitioned against the Bill. Those objections are based on concern to get a proper price for their properties if they are compulsorily acquired, and no one would condemn that. But no business owners have petitioned, and a completely amicable agreement has been reached with the Religious Society of Friends, whose burial ground is affected.
We are then informed that the proposed road works are in direct conflict with Ministry of Transport requirements; yet the proposals before the House have been designed in consultation with and to the approval of the Ministry. Many other arguments have been used about the rate income.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the point of compulsory purchase, has he any idea what the Corporation intends to pay in respect of compulsory purchase? Will he give an undertaking that the Corporation will not take over property until a compulsory purchase price has been agreed and paid?

Mr. Hobden: It depends on what arises from the Bill and what instruction, if any, is given by the Committee when it discusses the issue. But, as far as I am aware, the local authority will be dealing with this on the normal basis laid down by statute. I am not in a position to give any undertaking one way or the other but in another capacity, in which I sit on Brighton Town Council, I can


tell the hon. Member that he may take it for granted that some of us are concerned about people in private residences and intend to do what we can to protect their interests.
There were many arguments about the rates coming in and whether Brighton would lose money as a result of this project, but I think it can be shown that that is quite untrue and that, in fact, Brighton will benefit to a large extent after a certain time. It will produce a rate income of about £200,000 a year, a not inconsiderable sum going into the rate fund.
It seems odd that the people opposing a Bill to provide adequate roads say in the same breath that there will be traffic hazards. In my opinion they cannot have their cake and eat it. I will not go into all the other reasons, because hon. Members know all the issues involved by now, for they have been hammered out in the Press and elsewhere.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: The hon. Gentleman is aware that in the Preamble, in line 16, are given the two reasons for the need for these roads—increased traffic, on the one hand, and satisfactory access to the marina, on the other hand. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not like it to be thought that the marina is not one of the reasons why it is necessary to provide the road, although not the only reason.

Mr. Hobden: As I said earlier, this system will be required in any case by 1980 whether the marina ever comes to fruition or not. The marina has merely hastened the proposals. I do not want there to be any doubt about that.
I am the Member for the constituency in which the marina will be sited, and I can claim to be in touch with public opinion in Brighton on this issue. I want no hon. Member to be in any doubt that the people of Brighton have clearly demonstrated that they are in favour of the marina and the road scheme which makes it possible. Brighton means a lot to me. Its people mean a lot to me, as do its prosperity and its amenities.
For the reasons which I have given, I hope that the House will support the Second Reading of the Bill.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: As, Mr. Speaker, you have ruled that we are discussing not the marina but the Bill concerned with the roads, I shall try to avoid using the magic word "marina", although it may be necessary to refer to it in passing.
I submit that this Bill should be either postponed or defeated, for reasons which I shall give. This morning I received a letter which strongly supported my submission that the Bill should be either postponed or defeated. It is a letter from the Ministry of Transport which reads
You will, I think, recall that a Land Use Transportation Study is at present being carried out covering the whole Brighton area. The Department is of course in close touch with the Council on this study upon which a report is not expected until later this year. Until this has been completed and studied, no specific new road proposals will be put forward.
The letter continues:
There is, however, one exception. You will remember that the Brighton Marina Act passed last session required approval for further road works which might become necessary to accommodate the extra traffic generated by the proposed marina. The Council are, as you know, seeking approval to a proposed scheme in the Brighton Corporation Bill now before Parliament and it will be for Parliament to decide whether such proposals are acceptable.
In view of that letter, Mr. Speaker, with respect, you may think it wise and proper to defer this debate. If not, I shall continue my speech.

Mr. Speaker: I advise the hon. and learned Gentleman to continue his speech.

Mr. Hughes: For the convenience of the House I shall state seriatim why this roads Bill should not pass into law now or at any time. I shall then briefly state my reasons, which reasons are supported by thousands of Brighton electors at a public meeting in Brighton Dome and at the Town Hall, both specially summoned by Brighton Corporation to ascertain the citizens' views. In my submission the place selected for these new roads is un suitable, dangerous for cars and dangerous for people. The place should be, if at all, at Brighton Sailing Club, which is an old and respected sailing club with many members and with its own commodore. That place has approach roads—and lack of approach roads is one of the excuses for bringing this Bill forward.


It has shops and hotels. It has bus connections with the railway station. It has a steep beach which has been used for generations for launching and landing boats and has been used by Brighton sailors for many years.
The place planned by the Bill has none of these things. The place planned by the Bill conflicts with the Buchanan Report on Traffic in Towns; it conflicts with Brighton's road plans, now under discussion; and it conflicts with Brighton's existing roads and topography. The plan of this Bill would take powers from Brighton Corporation and give powers to uncertain and changing companies and speculators whose identity is uncertain, as I shall show in a moment. The Bill would prejudice the statutory services to Brighton people of the South-Eastern Gas Board, which has petitioned against the Bill. The Bill would deprive many residents of their homes, in Rifle-butt Road and elsewhere, who have petitioned against the Bill. The Bill would prejudice long-established nursing homes, schools, blocks of flats, convalescent homes and private houses. It would spoil the beautiful greensward walk to Rotting-dean. It would truncate the famous undercliff sea walk. It would conflict with the Nature Conservancy's notice, put there by Brighton Corporation under Section 23 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, stating how historic and important that site is.
If passed, the Bill would also permit ugly and dangerous tunnels where none exists today. It would create two fantastic motor roads, one down and one up, and as the distinguished architect or town planner, Mr. Gavin Scully, has indicated, it would provide a fantastic box of new roads, partly underground. It would spoil the regency beauty of Kemp-town, it would contradict the vote of 9,000 Brighton electors, and it would impose extravagant expense on Brighton citizens and ratepayers for the profit of speculators.
I shall now explain the very practical opposition of Brighton citizens. This unnecessary roads Bill relates not to a B road or roads but to a fantastic box of new roads through a thickly-populated area outside Brighton's town centre, thereby creating a new town to rival the

centre of Brighton itself, far away from Brighton railway station and with none of the advantages that the Bill claims.
The Bill would damage Brighton, which is a beautiful, classical and well-kept town and seaside resort of worldwide prestige, richly endowed by nature, history, royalty and the Regency period, as well as by its former borough councils, which made no attempt to organise inroads of this kind upon its beauty and amenities.
Brighton has a northern range of protective hills, a charming architectural sea-front, beautiful chalk cliffs with 100,000 years of fame and history, and, for present purposes, I mention that it has its own sailing club on a steep beach suitable for launching and landing boats. In addition, it has appropriate approach roads, shops and hotels.
If I may use the forbidden and magic word "marina", this is where the marina should be—at the present sailing club. Were it not for money speculators who, even now, change personnel and company names, there is no doubt that that is where it would be sited. Sometimes the company is called "Allied Land Holdings". Sometimes it is called "Westmoreland Properties". Sometimes it is called "Liverpool and County Discount". Whatever "discount" may mean in this connection, certainly it will result in a discount for the ratepayers of Brighton. I shall not trouble the House with a quotation that I have on the subject of the change of names.
This scheme and the Bill are petitioned against by Brighton electors. They are petitioned against by the South-Eastern Gas Board on grounds which are utilitarian, aesthetic and sensible, as I shall show. Suffice it to say that the excuse offered for this impracticable and damaging roads scheme is based on another scheme for a marina which is not the subject of this Bill and which is so expensive and wrong in terms of siting that it may never eventuate. If it does, it will be a financial burden to Brighton's ratepayers for many years.
A marina for yachts could be a very pleasant feature in the proper place—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must come to this Bill, and move away from the Marina Act.

Mr. Hughes: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to discuss the marina. I will not utter that magic word again.
Without uttering the word, Brighton's sailing club has all the amenities that this particular place lacks, and Brighton Sailing Club and Shoreham Sailing Club—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, we are not discussing the Brighton Sailing Club. We are discussing the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. Hughes: I am doing my best to sail clear of that shoal, Mr. Speaker.
The history of Brighton and its former borough councils has endowed the town richly with these appropriate amenities—but not at Black Rock; not where these roads are proposed. The place now chosen for this fantastic scheme of extravagant expense and philistine spoliation has none of the amenities that I have mentioned.
In a few sentences, I invite the House to envisage the aesthetic and economic tragedy which this sordid, money-grubbing scheme can inflict on Brighton and Black Rock. To the east of Brighton, there are the wide, well-kept roads along the elegant sea front. They lead past distinguished Regency terraces, past Roedean Girls' School, past St. Dunstan's Home for the Blind and to the picturesque village of Rottingdean. To the west, there are equally wide and well-kept roads provided by previous borough councils of Brighton—not the present one—leading to the large and versatile harbour of Shoreham, where, as I have said, there is already a yacht club which could be used.
Every part of Brighton has well-equipped and well-kept roads to which Brighton Borough Council, assisted by the Ministry of Transport, proposes to add a gigantic by-pass road from Shoreham to Newhaven. That may be frustrated if this Bill goes through, as the letter which I have indicated seems to indicate.
That is the unnecessary tragedy now facing Brighton. The Sussex coast has sailing clubs at Shoreham, Brighton and Newhaven. At the west end of Brighton there are Shoreham Harbour, which is large and capacious, the river flowing

into it, Shoreham railway station, Shoreham aerodrome, and shops and hotels with good approach roads. Instead of utilising these advantages which are readily at hand, this scheme is foisted on Brighton. I venture to quote a passage from the Brighton Evening Argus of 8th February this year on the subject. It states:
Without opening up all the festering wounds about whether or not the Brighton marina will be an amenity to the town, it strikes one as the height of irresponsibility for any corporation to hand over the heritage of its foreshore to make rich private enterprises richer.
If the marina is such a boon and a necessity to Brighton, and if Mr. Cohen and his confederates can raise enough capital to make it a viable and profitable proposition, why can't Brighton Corporation?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot call the Brighton Evening Argus to order, but I can call the hon. and learned Member to order. He must talk about the Bill.

Mr. Hughes: I promise not to discuss the marina, Mr. Speaker, but it is very difficult to avoid the names—

Mr. Roy Roebuck: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be very grateful if you would advise me about that aspect. In the Preamble, the "magic word", as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) calls it, is mentioned. Indeed, the whole Preamble would appear to indicate that this Bill is consequential on the Act. Therefore, are we not in some difficulty in not mentioning what has gone before?

Mr. Speaker: I am not forbidding the hon. and learned Member to mention the word "marina", but a marina has been decided on by an Act of Parliament. We cannot now go into the merits or demerits of a marina on which Parliament has already decided. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that.

Mr. Hughes: With respect, Mr. Speaker, it seems that those whom the Brighton Evening Argus call "confederates" are engaged in a gamble in which much of the money and control of Brighton will be taken from the Borough Council and put into the hands of those confederates. Whoever wins the gamble, it will not be Brighton. Brighton will lose. One may well ask under which thimble is the pea. That is what I protest against.


Brighton should have control of its own roads and its own foreshore. It should be protected by the Buchanan Report, which was approved by Parliament. I shall give reasons for saying that in this fantastic and misplaced Bill the confederates should be defeated.
In a nutshell, my reasons are as follows. The new roads would conflict with the public interest; with access to the foreshore; with the Buchanan Report; with the gas board's public service to the citizens; and with the Ministry of Transport's negotiations. The scheme would also set up a new town only two miles from the Brighton urban centre. It would urbanise and deface a traditional beauty spot which, as I have indicated, Brighton Borough Corporation protects with a public notice that has been there for years.
It is relevant to the proposed new road and tunnel to quote the notice placed there by the Nature Conservancy. The notice was copied out for me by the distinguished architect to whom I have already referred. It reads:
The raised beach was laid down about 100,000 years ago in a warm interval in the middle of a great ice age when the sea level here was 20 or 30 feet higher than it is today. This beach has yielded sea shells, the remains of a whale, teeth of a horse, and a few flint implements made by prehistoric man.
The Coombe-Rock was formed during the succeeding period of extreme cold. It consists of chalk and other debris probably washed down by spring and summer rains falling upon a chalk surface broken up by winter frosts of an Arctic severity. It came down the seaward slope of Red Hill—about two-thirds of a mile away to the N.E.—in a pasty condition and guttered over the brow of the old cliff; later, it hardened to its present state. It has yielded bones and teeth of a mammoth and woolly rhinoceros as well as remains of animals which lived in the warm interval, such as hippopotamus.
The present cliff is the result of marine erosion, the sea having washed away much of these deposits. Such erosion is now prevented by the coast defence works and the site is being preserved by the Corporation of Brighton.
That notice appears over the following imprimatur:
Notified by the Nature Conservancy as a site of special scientific interest under Section 23 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949.
I am sorry to have laboured that matter, but it is important that the House should appreciate not only the history of

Brighton but the aesthetic beauty of the place.
I quote that notice on the authority of Mr. Gavin Scully, a Fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects. He has inspected the place and points out, first, that the notice is only 50 yards from the proposed new road; second, that the new road would be tunnelled into the same cliff face; and third, that the new tunnel would be extensive enough to accommodate three branch new roads leading to car parking garages sited on the beach or foreshore.
All this is in conflict with the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949; with the Nature Conservancy; with Brighton Borough Council's notice; with the Buchanan Report; and with the public need. On these grounds alone, I submit that the House should reject the Bill as being contrary to Statute, contrary to public policy, and contrary to the needs and interest of the Brighton people.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Marten Maddan: I am sure that the House will agree, Mr. Speaker, that you were generous to the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) in allowing him to develop his argument as he did. I do not propose to follow his argument, except to say that to base any case at all against the roads referred to in the Bill he had to redeploy his case against the marina which has already been approved by the House. All the local Members of Parliament having supported the marina, they naturally support this Bill, which is a necessary concomitant of the marina scheme.
The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the citizens of Brighton, but the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden) has already pointed out that by a vote of two to one, on a town's poll, the great majority of those citizens have already said that they are in favour of the Bill to provide these roads, and to provide them now, at that end of Brighton where the marina is to be built. It was said that the ratepayers of Brighton would suffer. Far from it, for the Marina Company is making a very substantial contribution to the cost of the roads proposed under this Bill, which have to


be built some time in the next dozen years anyway.
I should have thought the hon. and learned Member might have made a point about the position of the actual residents in property which will be affected by this Bill. With them I sympathise. I sympathise with anyone whose property is to be taken to make way for some public scheme. I think we all do, but we all know that whether it is for schools, hospitals, roads or other public purposes, from time to time this has to happen. The important thing then is that those people should have fair compensation. Brighton Corporation has negotiated with as many as it can and hopes to conclude negotiations amicably with the rest, but if it cannot do so of course, as happens in all cases of this sort, compulsory powers will be needed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) asked if the purchase of the houses would be completed and the money paid over before the property was taken. That, of course, depends on how reasonable the residents are in reaching agreement with Brighton Corporation. If they were holding out for some entirely unreasonable sum, of course it would be necessary—perhaps so that engineering works could proceed—for the houses to be taken first, but that certainly is not the intention of the corporation.

Mr. Costain: Surely my hon. Friend appreciates that the actual sum can be agreed with the district valuer. The problem is how quickly the corporation pays. These people are to be put to considerable inconvenience.

Mr. Maddan: The district valuer determines the amount, not Brighton Corporation. As I understand, the district valuer having determined the amount and any appeals having been heard and settled, Brighton Corporation will pay, but in so far as it proceeds by negotiation the negotiation depends upon a reasonable attitude being taken by the persons in the property as well as by the corporation.

Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. Member appreciates, does he not, that the objection to this process is not so much the marina, but what follows

from it? Here we have a situation where a vast commercial enterprise is being undertaken, where the developers could not obtain compulsory purchase powers within their own right and are using the corporation to do for them what they could not do for themselves, because they would have no Parliamentary powers to carry out that process. That is where the indignation arises.

Mr. Maddan: The hon. Member for Kemptown explained that the road scheme for the eastern end of Brighton was already on the files of Brighton Corporation. All that is at issue now is whether it should come forward at this time because the marina makes it more urgent, or whether it should wait until a later date. Because of that I need not follow the hon. Member into the question of the marina and its advent making a necessity for these roads, except that many privately-owned facilities—for instance, Wembley Stadium—must affect a road scheme for the area. The marina will affect the road scheme for this area. There is nothing peculiar about that.
So it is with sympathy for people who find themselves under this scheme—or any other—having to be bought out, that I give complete support to this Bill as a neighbour of Brighton. The Bill is an essential complement to a Bill which was passed previously by this Parliament concerning Brighton Marina itself.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: As the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) said, it is quite clear from the Preamble of the proposed Measure that it is consequential to the Brighton Marina Act, which we cannot discuss tonight, however many of us deplore that private persons should be given the public foreshore and in that way destroy part of our national heritage.
Before the House passes this Bill we should ask for a much fuller explanation of why these roads are required. I understand that no public inquiry has been held as to the necessity for these roads. Those who bring the Bill before the House should have taken that preliminary step before asking approval for the Bill. Even if it were shown that these roads are required, we should ask why the public should be asked to pay for them. Is


it appropriate for statutory powers to be used to enable a private concern to flourish more profitably? I do not think it is. Is it appropriate for a private concern, apparently, to be able to short-circuit plans which the Ministry of Transport has for this area?
A further aspect of this matter concerns the House as a whole, whether or not hon. Members approve this scheme. That is, whether the proposals in the Bill, with its totally redrawn approach road system, is an attempt to get round Parliament's refusal on the last Measure to give compulsory powers to purchase land and property for the approach roads. The House will recall that those powers were deleted from the former Measure by the Committee on the ground that since this was primarily a private enterprise development the land should be acquired by negotiation. This aspect requires most detailed consideration by the House. If the Measure goes to Committee, I hope that hon. Members on the Committee will inquire closely into whether the Bill is a subterfuge to get round the deletion of those powers in the previous Measure.
I am not persuaded by what I have heard tonight that the House should allow the Bill to proceed. Unless we have a much more forthcoming explanation from those who support the Measure, I shall certainly vote against it.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) has spoken with some disdain of the marina having been sponsored by a private enterprise company. He will, however, find that all the great ports such as Southampton and Liverpool, were developed by private enterprise companies in the first place. The marina was obviously not something which would be put up by a public authority.
I shall not have to argue that case, because the Bill for the marina has already been passed. I argue as one not connected with Brighton, but as a member of the general public and of the yachting fraternity. In that connection, it seems that this consequential Bill is very necessary and should be passed. I think that I am right in saying that the yachting fraternity read with pleasure that the marina was to be constructed. There is a considerable fringe on the South Coast—

Mr. Roebuck: Was it not also welcomed by the gambling fraternity? Are there not some facilities for gambling?

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I have not gone into that. Hon. Members representing Brighton and district will no doubt tell us something about it. I am talking about it merely as somebody interested in going down to the sea in ships, or in yachts. If there is to be a little harbour for boats and yachts, the yachtsmen obviously have to get there.
When I read about it, it seemed to me that it was natural that there would have to be a Bill following the Brighton Marina Act to enable roads to be built so that yachtsmen could get to the marina. Not only that, but many people who are not at all well off tow dinghies and boats down to the water's edge. This is another reason why roads are an absolute consequential necessity following the Brighton Marina Act.
The Select Committee found that it was not right for a commercial enterprise to construct roads or to apply for powers to do so, but that it would be right for a public authority to do so. I agree. Roads are a matter for a public authority. Roads affect the public interest. They affect ratepayers. They affect people living and working in Brighton. Therefore, these roads should be built by the public authority.
The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) told us of the tragic events which would follow the building of this road over the Coombe Rock. He gave us a graphic and historical account of the Rock. My memory is that the Rock extends for several miles. As a child, I walked along and picked up molloscs and seaweed on the Rock. I imagine that the road will take only a couple of hundred yards over the Rock and will not affect the great historic value of the mass of the rocks that stretch for two or three miles along the coast.
Finally, I believe that the public interest will be well served if there are some roads down to this little harbour to enable thousands of people—rich, poor, middle income groups—who enjoy sailing to walk, drive and, indeed, to tow their boats down to the marina.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: Normally I would not consider it part of my duty to intervene in a matter of this kind, as I represent a constituency hundreds of miles from Brighton, but I have been to Brighton many times and have taken an interest in the surrounding countryside and in the amenities of Brighton, particularly its coastline. Although we are prohibited by the rules of order from bringing into debate again the merits of the marina scheme, we are concerned tonight with something that flows from the House of Commons, wrongly in my view, giving approval to that scheme.
I want to voice my objections as temperately as I can. I deplore the fact that a scheme backed by a vast amount of finance and to be operated for purely commercial reasons can take control over a very beautiful part of the foreshore of my native land. It is deplorable that the South Coast of England, stretching from Brighton through Hove and away to Chichester, has been defaced and ruined by spurious and completely uncivilised economic development of one kind or another.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. We are discussing the Brighton Corporation Bill, which deals with road access in Brighton.

Mr. Price: I am dealing with that also, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thank you for pulling me up, because I do not want to get out of order.
In speaking of this coastline I am dealing with the lines of communication serving it. Both the collateral roads and the roads approaching the coast are matters of public policy which affect the central Government just as much as they affect the borough which has given its approval to this scheme.
It is a matter of no passing importance that we are being asked to by-pass the Ministry of Transport and its long-term policy for roads to convenience commercial developers. Hon. Members, in the discharge of their public duty, have a right to say that they do not think this is in accordance with public policy. As hon. Members who have interested themselves in the Bill on other occasions know, there is great doubt about what is

to happen in the near future to the owners of houses affected. I hold no brief for these householders: I do not know them. I know my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), who lives in Brighton. He graces the town by his presence there so late in life. He has put himself on the map. I understand that he swims every day off the coast there. In future he will be prevented from taking his morning dip, merely because somebody will interfere with the cliffs and burrow tunnels for new roads there.
It has been said that compensation will be dealt with by the district valuer. Will it? The district valuer used to fix an arbitrary figure which had to be observed. As I understand it, under statute law the full commercial value, not an arbitrary figure, must now be paid. Brighton Corporation will be acting as agents in the exercise of its power to issue compulsory purchase orders, which the developers could never have issued on their own behalf. The company which is financing for the time being this operation in its early stages—Allied Land and Investment Company Limited—is currently the subject of a take-over bid by another group of financiers.
The leaseholders or freeholders who are to be dispossessed occupy some of the most beautiful residential Regency-type houses in the town. These houses still have aesthetic beauty, in contrast with some of the commercial property now going up. Is the corporation, in fixing the value it must pay for these properties, to be completely uninfluenced by the body which will be handing the finance to the corporation? This operation must be partly financed by whoever owns the scheme when it comes to fruition. There is a doubt in my mind about who will be the operative partner if another group of financiers are now seeking to take over the operations carried on by the firm I have named.
I have already indicated that I feel strongly that Britain should always be aware that many commercial interests have no regard whatever for our aesthetic inheritance by way of countryside, coastline, and the natural beauty of our native land. The House should be alert to say that on suitable occasions it is not prepared to be over-ridden by the presentation of a vast commercial scheme


which appears to be attractive to various concerns. Those who are in support of the scheme can take what comfort they like from the fact that Brighton Corporation has sponsored and supported the scheme. But part of this scheme would not have been sponsored but for the fact that there has been introduced into it a vast new source of gambling, which I have always opposed in this House as anti-social and against the best interests of our people.
Therefore, I hope the House will not lightly pass this Measure which will give to the developers, through their agents, the Brighton Corporation, the right to levy taxes for the financing of these new roads when no undertakings have been given as to what is to happen to the people whose homes are to be pulled down, the cost of which is to be defrayed by this scheme.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. John Hay: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), but there is nothing in the Bill about gambling. This is a simple Bill, and, despite all that has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), whose dislike of the marina scheme is very well known, and very sincerely held, of course, this scheme is intended simply to enable certain roads at the eastern end of Brighton to be improved.
Hon. Members may recollect that a number of years ago I held the position held by the present Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who I hope, will say a few words on the Bill tonight. I recall that even in those days Brighton Corporation was extremely concerned about the necessity for improving the road systems in that part of the town. Indeed, there was a scheme designed as long ago as 1953 for providing an ambitious gyratory system to divert traffic around the sides of a square formed by the existing roads, because at the peak periods of the summer the main coast road at the eastern end of Brighton is extremely heavily congested, and in any event, even if the marina had never been thought of, some improvement of those roads at that point would have been necessary.
As the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden) quite rightly

said—although it has been forgotten by subsequent speakers—the whole point of the Bill is that the scheme has had to be brought forward because the marina is to be constructed. It might well have been that if the marina had never been thought of and if the Brighton Marina Act had never been passed, a programme based upon the scheme outlined in the Bill could have been deferred for some years to come. It could be so, but I rather doubt it because I recollect the pressure that there was some years ago on this matter. If I remember the figures correctly, I think it is true to say that in about 1965 traffic flow at peak periods at this point of Brighton was in the region of 1,200 vehicles an hour, and that is pretty heavy. Therefore, in any event the scheme would have been needed.
I have said that there was an earlier scheme, originally designed in about 1952 or 1953, and revised in 1958. It is true that that scheme would have been very much bigger than the rather more modest and somewhat more effective scheme that is proposed in this Bill.
Mr. Speaker, when he was in the Chair, quite rightly told the House that since Parliament has approved the marina and since the Brighton Marina Act is on the Statute Book, we should not go into its merits. But I think it is important that the House should recollect that when the Bill was before a Committee of this House, it was said by the promoters that the roads would have to be improved, and the Committee quite rightly then said, "In that case, we cannot grant you, a private organisation, compulsory powers. If, on the other hand, the local authority were to come forward to obtain compulsory powers, that would be an entirely different matter." That is exactly what has happened. Parliament refused these compulsory powers to the promoters of the marina, and the corporation has now come forward with its request to Parliament for the compulsory powers. That is the whole purpose of this Bill.
May I say a word about what I apprehend to be the effect upon housing. I have had some letters about this, and other hon. Members, too, may have had letters. I have already referred to the earlier scheme in the 1950s. I believe that in the 1958 scheme, which was much bigger than the present scheme, the


acquisition of 37 houses and three flats would have been necessary, and 118 houses and flats and a convalescent home would have been encircled by the gyratory system. They would have become an island. The present scheme is much less ambitious. As I understand, only 20 houses and two flats are involved in acquisition at all. Six of these are already owned by the corporation; two more have had terms for purchase agreed by the owners; and there are negotiations proceeding in respect of two others.
I think it is significant that only two petitions against the Bill have been lodged. One is the petition by the gas board, some of whose land is affected. The House is sophisticated enough to know that a public utility like a gas board always puts in a petition if any of its land is even remotely affected; and of course, negotiations take place and a settlement is reached. I believe that a settlement in this case, if it has not already been reached, is about to be reached.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that what he has been saying about the gas board is pure hypothesis? The petition stands. The gas board has its objections, and any question of a settlement such as the hon. Gentleman suggested is pure imagination on his part.

Mr. Hay: With all respect to the hon. and learned Member, the South Eastern Gas Board people are pretty big boys, and I expect they can stand up to the Brighton Corporation if they need to. I have told the House what I understand to be the position, which is that negotiations with the gas board have either been completed or are expected to be completed, which will probably lead to the withdrawal of the petition. There is nothing startling or unusual about that.

Mr. Costain: I am interested in what my hon. Friend has said about the number of properties involved. Does he recall that the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) talked about "nursing homes" in the plural? Would he confirm that that is imagination on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman?

Mr. Hay: I would hesitate to use such a word in the presence of the hon. and learned Member. Some of the remarks that he made to the House earlier, were, I think, perhaps a little high flown, shall I say? But I would not say that they were the product of imagination. As I understand the facts, a single nursing home—not more than one—is no longer affected, but I stand to be corrected if I am wrong. The important thing is this—

Mr. J. T. Price: rose—

Mr. Hay: No, I will not give way for a moment.
If the Bill gets a Second Reading it will be for the Committee on the Bill to investigate such a question. The whole purpose of this Second Reading is that we say that we agree in principle to the Bill going forward for consideration by a Committee. It is for a Committee to investigate all these issues.

Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. Gentleman is putting his point very moderately. But is he not introducing what lawyers call the de minimis argument—that these are only small properties and there are only a few of them? Is he not avoiding the main question, that this scheme and the attendant growth will change the whole character of the area and destroy what it now is?

Mr. Hay: I ask the hon. Gentleman to be a little patient. I was coming to that point.
I was talking about the owners of property and the houses which are affected when the hon. and learned Member interrupted me in defence of the South Eastern Gas Board. I come back to the question of the houses. As I say, apart from the petition by the gas board, only one other petition has been lodged, and that is by the owners of seven of the houses which are involved in the whole of this scheme.
With respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I doubt that there is such violent feeling throughout the Borough of Brighton about some grave injustice which would be done by the Bill to the owners of houses in that part of the town. If it were so, I am sure that a much more powerful petition would have been lodged. But, be that as it may, the whole point is that, since it is now a public authority, the local authority, which


would be given the power of compulsory acquisition, the compensation to be paid to the owners of the properties will have to follow the normal statutory rule, namely, that they will receive market value.
The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) spoke of "full commercial value:". That is market value. In recent years, I am glad to say, Parliament has so provided, to put matters right. Further, with respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think it a little unfortunate that some of those who were involved in the earlier debates on the matter did not appreciate that, when compulsory purchase powers were sought by the Marina Company, that company would, under the earlier Act, as I understand, have had power to pay more than market value. It is one of the bones of contention of the present owners of property affected that they will receive only market value, not market value plus something more which they would have had if the Marina Company had had the statutory power which the House then would not give it.
I come now to the question of the raised beach. With respect, the hon. and learned Gentleman was exaggerating when he said that this scheme and the roads to be built would seriously affect the Coombe Rock and this area of great natural interest. I am ready to be corrected if I am wrong, but I understand that the road will be a considerable distance away, and I am convinced that the corporation, watched carefully with its customary eagle eye by the Ministry of Transport, will do all it can to avoid any interference with that unique geological formation.
The hon. Member for Westhoughton, in an intervention just now, said that the scheme would completely change the whole character of this end of the town. I do not know how well the hon. Gentleman knows that end of Brighton.

Mr. J. T. Price: Very well indeed.

Mr. Hay: I know it very well. I was born there, and I lived there for many years. The part the hon. Gentleman refers to, the Georgian terraces and the great architectural heritage, is further to the west.
The part in which this scheme is to take place has always been regarded by Brightonians as a not particularly attract-

tive area. There is the gas works. There are all sorts of rather undistinguished late Victorian houses, some of which will be demolished under the scheme. My own feeling is that, if it goes through, the scheme will enormously improve the general appearance of the area, linked as it will be with the marina, for which I have never denied my support. I believe that it will be a splendid thing for the town. It will bring a great many people there and will give a great deal of pleasure to many.

Mr. J. T. Price: It will bring a lot more "spivs" there.

Mr. Hay: I think that most improbable. I hesitate to say who will come, but I do not think that "spivs" will be found at the marina.
Having said that, I give my support to the Bill. I reiterate what I said a moment ago, since it is important that the House should recognise what it is doing. We are asked to give the Bill a Second Reading. We are asked that it should then go to Committee for careful and detailed examination of all the points which have been raised tonight. In the circumstances, I hope that we shall follow our normal practice and adopt that course.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: The usual complaint about Private Bills is that they sneak on to the Statute Book without the House knowing much about them. No one could say that of the Brighton marina scheme. The principle of it and the detail have been fully debated already—a Second Reading debate on the Bill in this House and in another place, and a Report stage debate in this House and another place. We are, therefore, familiar with the background to the present Bill.
I doubt that the powers sought by the Brighton Corporation under the Bill are not in its hand already as the law stands. In other words, I doubt that it needs the Bill. It is an authority which can build roads and even build tunnels for roads. I think it very honest of the corporation to say to the House, "The traffic conditions at the moment, perhaps, do not justify our building these roads, but they will in a few years". The corporation could say that traffic conditions are such now that it must have powers to build,


but it has put the matter honestly to the House.
Under these two Measures, the Brighton Marina Act, 1968 and the present Bill, an important principle has been established. The House rejected the plea of a commercial enterprise to be given the right to exercise compulsory purchase powers. In our debates at that time, the House said that they were not powers which it was prepared to give to a private commercial enterprise, but it would give them to a local authority. Now, the Bill comes before us which would give those powers to the Brighton Corporation, and one cannot take exception to it at this stage.
One sympathises with those whose property will be acquired, but one could not possibly speak of this scheme, as the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) did, as a Philistine spoliation. I hope, however, that the corporation will find a way to compensate owners quickly. If there is power to pay a percentage of the district valuer's valuation so that owners may find other accommodation easily and quickly, I hope that the corporation will undertake to make such a payment, even if the question of the final figure has to go to the Lands Tribunal. If something substantial could be paid on account, that would relieve the hardship of those suffering compulsory acquisition.
In Committee, the corporation will have to prove the dual need for the powers which it seeks, the dual need set out in the Preamble, namely, that in the foreseeable future the traffic will so increase as to make these roads necessary, and, second, that almost at the present time they will be necessary for the Marina project, as, indeed, was said in Section 41 of the previous Act.
I respectfully express the opinion, therefore, that the House should send the Bill to Committee, on the ground that, if the Preamble is proved, the powers sought by the corporation may properly be granted.

8.28 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): It might be helpful to the House to know that my right hon. Friend is prepared to approve the roadworks detailed in the Bill, which is a follow-up

of the Brighton Marina Act, which contained a provision in Section 41 that
If, in the opinion of the Minister, any part of the authorised development will, when open for use, either on its own account or in conjunction with some other portion of that development, produce conditions in the neighbourhood of the authorised development requiring road facilities additional to those which would otherwise then be available, that part of the authorised development shall not be open for use unless and until such additional road facilities as the Minister certifies to be required to meet those conditions have been provided to his satisfaction.
The completed marina will be a very large development containing a yacht harbour, marina club, restaurants, public houses, oceanarium, ice rink and recreational facilities, shops, hotels, a boatel, and residential units. The site adjoins the principal road, A259, which would be unable to accommodate the traffic generated by the development if access were to be taken directly from it.
It has been recognised all along by everyone concerned that special traffic arrangements would be needed to cater for the extra traffic, and that a satisfactory system would involve fairly extensive roadworks. The proposal in the Bill comprises a gyratory system using part of Roedean Road, which will become oneway, Riflebutt Road, which will be widened, and a new road to be constructed from the southern end of Rifle-butt Road to swing across nearly to Boundary Road to join Roedean Road again. Access roads to the marina will be joined to the system at the southern end. The whole system will be grade separated from the A259, and will not impede other traffic on that road.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Has not my hon. Friend entirely overlooked that it is only the marina site that requires the extra roads, that the alternatives I mentioned in my speech already have those amenities, and that no further Bill would be necessary with them?

Mr. Brown: It is not for me to introduce a further debate on where the marina should be sited.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) seemed to suggest that the Bill would by-pass the priorities of the Ministry of Transport. I want to clear up this point. The Bill gives the Brighton Corporation the power to borrow money to construct these roads,


which are purely within the responsibility of the council. They are not Ministry of Transport roads as such, and would not rank for grant from the Ministry. [An HON. MEMBER: "Then why is the Minister intervening?"] This is a Private Bill. I am taking no part in any controversial issues, but I want to put the record right on what my hon. Friend seemed to suggest, and I am entitled to do this.

Mr. J. T. Price: I raised this matter inferentially when I spoke. What I want to know more specifically is whether the Ministry of Transport can change its priorities for allocating public money to different parts of the country, whether, through a tremendous capital development undertaken by a private company, the Ministry can be dragged into the matter at a late stage and have to shift its priorities. I should like a firm undertaking on this. The road my hon. Friend has just referred to is a 50 per cent. grant road. It is not a purely local road.

Mr. Brown: If my hon. Friend would only be a little more patient, he would save the time of the House. I had intended going on to say that Brighton will receive no special treatment in the granting of consent to borrow. Any borrowings will be subject to Treasury consent, with Ministry of Transport approval. This will not be given unless a priority can be established in relation to road construction as a whole. If that is the assurance my hon. Friend seeks, I am happy to give it.

Mr. Roebuck: If my hon. Friend is now telling the House that there is no urgency about the Measure, that it may be some time before the Treasury would be prepared to grant permission to borrow if the Bill went through, there is no urgent need for it.

Mr. Brown: I am not debating the urgency or otherwise of the Measure, but simply stating a bald fact, that no specific priority will be given to borrowing powers. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the proposed road works will make adequate provision for the traffic likely to be generated by the development, and that is where his responsibility comes in.
I want now to deal with the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector

Hughes) on the question of the new roads proposals which will be submitted being given priority, as he put it, in advance of the Land Use/Transportation Study. Since we are already committed by the Brighton Marina Act, this is something which must be an exception to the study. Some trouble arises over the cliff walk itself. The Bill will give to Brighton Corporation power to acquire land, including part of the cliff top.

Mr. Hector Hughes: My hon. Friend has completely misunderstood what I said. I pointed out that there are alternative sites, with all the amenities necessary, and that the Bill seeks to give this wrong and misplaced site. Will he deal with that?

Mr. Brown: I do not wish to be tempted to incur your displeasure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by disobeying the rules of order.
I simply conclude by saying that Brighton Corporation will have power under the Bill to acquire land including part of the cliff top, but there seems no reason why access to the remaining part of the cliff from Madeira Drive should not remain as before. The proposed works will interfere with the first part of Under-cliff Walk as it is at present—that is, past Black Rock swimming pool—but work No. 11 in the Bill is a diversion of the path which will preserve the through route for pedestrians and should not be any the less convenient than the existing path.
Having looked today at the maps of the scheme, it seems to me that the fact that the cliff path will be brought forward towards the sea will, if anything, make a pleasant walk for pedestrians.

Question put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Gresham Cooke (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been in the Lobby, but I have not yet been counted and the Tellers seem to have disappeared.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that there has been some misunderstanding—because the Tellers named for this Division are not accustomed to undertaking that duty. Perhaps the proper course would be to call the Division again.

The House again divided: Ayes 56, Noes 60.

Division No. 120.1
AYES
[8.45 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hay, John
Newens, Stan


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hazell, Bert
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Biffen, John
Hiley, Joseph
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Perry, Ernest C. (Battersea, S.)


Cant, R. B.
Hoy, James
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Carmichael, Neil
Janner, Sir Barnett
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Costain, A. P.
Kenyon, Clifford
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Crawshaw, Richard
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Currie, G. B. H.
Lawson, George
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr)
Lipton, Marcus
Tinn, James


Dobson, Ray
MacColl, James
Wall, Patrick


Doughty, Charles
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Ward, Dame Irene


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mawby, Ray
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Maxwell, Robert
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Goodhew, Victor
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Gregory, Arnold
Monro, Hector



Gresham Cooke, R.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hannan, William
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Mr. Dennis Hobden and


Harper, Joseph
Monro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Mr. Martin Maddan.




NOES


Alldritt, walter
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Bishop, E. S.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rowlands, E.


Booth, Albert
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Sheldon, Robert


Brooks, Edwin
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N' c' tle-u-Tyne)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones. T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Silverman, Julius


Coleman, Donald
Lubbock, Eric
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Doig Peter
McBride, Neil
Tuck, Raphael


Driberg, Tom
Mackie, John
Urwin, T. W.


Ennals, David
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Varley, Eric G.


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Faulds, Andrew
Millan, Bruce
Wellbeloved, James


Fernyhough, E.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Ogden, Eric
Wilkins, W. A.


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Freeson, Reginald
Orbach, Maurice
Woof, Robert


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Oswald, Thomas



Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Palmer, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Heffer, Eric S.
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Mr. Peter Archer and


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pavitt, Laurence
Mr. Roy Roebuck.


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

YORK CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Bill be now read a Second time.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I am glad to see such a goodly attendance for the debate on this historic Measure. This is a general power Bill, much of it in the kind of terms of which the House will be well aware in relation to local authority general powers Measures, but I take it that the House, even as full as it is, would not be interested in all 93 Clauses of the Bill. For instance, it would not be of importance to the House to know that the sheriff requires some remuneration or even why there is a sheriff of York at all, or what help it will be to clarify the boundaries of freemen's wards. I shall therefore concentrate on two Clauses which I know have caused some controversy among hon. Members, and which, as I understand it, have caused the debate to take place
I hope that the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) will soon be in his place, since he is most concerned with the first Clause to which I shall refer, namely, Clause 13, which relates to the exacting of tolls from vessels using the stretch of the River Ouse which is administered by the trustees of the River Ouse. Those trustees are the Corporation of the City of York, and they are such, I believe, by Royal Charter, but certainly for the purpose of private Acts going back to 1725.
The stretch of the river which comes within the Corporation's authority is 42 miles, 28 miles of which is tidal, below Naburn Locks to the Hook Railway Bridge. The rest is non-tidal, above Naburn Locks. The problem is that for many years the trustees have had power under these Private Acts to administer tolls above Naburn Locks in the non-tidal stretch, but due to decline of river traffic above the locks the tolls exacted have for many years not been sufficient to meet the expenditure required for the upkeep of the locks and navigation along the total stretch. The result is that a deficit has accumulated, now standing at about £99,000. In addition, there are debts amounting to about £50,000 which

cannot be met by the existing rate of tolls.
The problem has been that if the tolls were increased to a more realistic figure above the locks the fall-off of river traffic would be accelerated, whereas river traffic below the locks has continued to flourish and so far has made no contribution to the general upkeep of the navigation along this stretch.
The Transport Act, 1962, created river boards and gave the British Transport Commission and the Docks Board powers to levy tolls in areas of navigation under their control. By Section 52 of that Act the independent inland waterway undertakings were given similar powers to exact tolls in relation to their stretches of navigation. In my view, the section was sufficient to cover the York trustees and they could levy tolls on the tidal stretch, but when the town clerk took counsel's opinion, counsel had some hesitation, and it was decided to clear the matter up by inserting Clause 13. Therefore, for the avoidance of doubt, Sections 43 and 52 of the 1962 Act are held to apply to the trustees; so tolls can be imposed in that tidal stretch.
Already, the trustees have prepared tolls for cargo vessels and pleasure craft and have put them to the Ministry of Transport—not because they were under a statutory obligation to do so, but so that the tolls could be vetted to see if they accorded with the prices and incomes policy. I am happy to say that, only recently, the Minister confirmed that the tolls fell within the policy and that we would have no objection, provided that, instead of a 3d. limit per ton mile on cargo vessels, the trustees did not impose initially a toll of more than Id. per ton mile.
The trustees never intended to do this, but were always content to limit the increase to Id. initially, leaving the maximum to be reached whenever the inflation of costs made it necessary or desirable. But they have always recognised that if tolls are imposed on river traffic when other forms of inland transport offer strong competition, more traffic will be driven off the river. A balance has to be struck. The trustees are aware of this, particularly as they have had the problem for many years in the non-tidal stretch of their concern. Publicity should be given to the fact that they will not


act precipitately and that they are anxious to be as reasonable as their finances will allow them.
The second Clause which has caused controversy is Clause 30. Here, the Corporation was concerned about the problem of itinerant caravan dwellers parking on unoccupied spaces in the city, particularly those which had been subject of slum clearance. This problem is not unique to York. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), who has taken an interest in these matters, brought forward recently the 1968 Caravan Sites Act, which was intended to deal with this problem. The hon. Member deals with it in the second part of that Act by providing that spaces shall be set aside within each local authority area for caravan dwellers, particularly, within the terms of the Act for gypsies. When those sites have been obtained and notified, the Minister should allow the other parts of Part II to come into effect, which would give the authority power to move on caravan dwellers who occupy pieces of land other than the authorised caravan site. In other words, there is both a stick and a carrot.
York Corporation has acted in advance of the implementation of the 1968 Act because Part II of that Act is not yet in effect. I understand that the hon. Member for Orpington may have something to say about that, Mr. Speaker, if he catches your eye. Until it comes into effect, the York local authority is under no obligation to provide any sites for caravan dwellers. Nevertheless, it has done so. It has provided a site in Love Lane designed to take about 15 caravans, and the proposal, as is not unnatural in the circumstances, has met with some resistance from local residents. The matter is before the Minister to consider whether a public inquiry is desirable. If he thinks it is desirable, then a public inquiry will have to take place in relation to that proposal.
But the local authority is anxious to comply with the obligations which will be imposed upon it under the 1968 Act. The local authority took its duty so seriously that it has undertaken voluntarily to provide that site. But it follows that if it is to act in advance of the compulsory powers under the 1968 Act, it should also have the stick, which at

present it does not have in any provision either under a local law or under the general law. Therefore, the local authority proposes under the Bill to take power to move on caravan dwellers who occupy otherwise unoccupied pieces of land in the City. The Corporation proposes—this is not written into the Bill—that that power should exist until Part II of the Caravan Sites Act, 1968, comes into effect.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Am I correct in assuming that the powers conferred on York Corporation by Clause 30 come into effect immediately the Bill receives the Royal Assent? Will the hon. Member, therefore, not agree that there is a difference between the Caravan Sites Act, 1968, and the York Corporation Bill in that under my Act the powers to control unauthorised encampments do not come into effect until local authorities have provided sites, whereas in the Bill the powers pre-date the provision of sites?

Mr. Lyon: If the hon. Member had been patient enough to wait he would have discovered that I was coming to that point. He is correct. In the Bill we propose to take the stick and not provide the carrot. That is partly, as I have indicated, because the carrot has already been provided; the space is being provided voluntarily. Secondly, it seems to me to be an unusual requirement of a local authority that it should put a burden upon itself within its own general powers Bill to provide sites which it is voluntarily prepared to provide.
The local authority is well aware of the feelings of caravan dwellers, and particularly those of such itinerant caravan dwellers as gypsies, and of the feelings of the residents in the areas in which these caravan dwellers congregate. What it is trying to do is to effect justice between residents, both temporary and permanent, within the city. As I understand it, that was the intention of Part II of his Act. That is also the intention of the York Corporation. It is quite true that it is not putting upon itself the statutory burden to provide such a site, but it has not lost sight of the necessity for providing both the site and the power to move on those who occupy unoccupied waste land.
Therefore, I would ask the hon. Gentleman to accept the good intentions and good faith of the York Corporation in this matter and recognise that, if not unique, it is unusual for a local authority to provide a caravan site so early before the implementation of Part II of the Caravan Sites Act, 1968.
I do not wish to detain the House with any other matter in the Bill. If a point occurs to any hon. Member which he wishes to air, I hope that I shall be given leave to reply to it at the end of the debate and to any other matter that I have not been able to deal with at this stage.
One final matter which may cause concern to some hon. Members arises in Clauses 32 and 33. They provide very unusual powers in a general powers Bill, but they are required by reason of the historic buildings and amenities of the City of York. They restrict the kinds of advertisement which may be displayed inside or outside a building, and they also restrict the power of owners or occupiers to paint the exteriors of buildings, apart from the gutters, doors and windows. The powers are required because it is desired to preserve the historic core of the City of York for posterity in as much detail and with as much of the existing townscape as possible.
The Ministry is very much aware of the problems posed by an historic city of this kind. For that purpose, it has appointed the consultant, Lord Esher, to prepare a report about the problems of conserving the historic core of the city. His report has just been received, and he makes the point in it that it is desirable to restrict the kind of garish advertising which can sometimes occur not only on the exterior of a building, which to some extent is restricted by the town planning provisions which are part of the general law, but also on the interior of a building. He also makes some pointed remarks about the painting of some of the buildings. I have letters from the York Georgian Society strongly supporting both powers and indicating the necessity for them within a city like York.
I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading and allow it to proceed to Committee.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: As the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) says, I have been caused some anxiety by the provisions of Clause 30. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I explain why the Clause has wider implications than may appear at first sight.
The Clause allows the corporation to
… prohibit any person from causing or permitting a caravan … to be placed and left on any open space, waste land or other unenclosed land of any description
As I have explained, my objection to it is that it duplicates some of the provisions of the Caravan Sites Act, 1968, which, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the Government have not yet seen fit to bring into force. Although the provisions of the Clause parallel those of Section 10 of my Act, in some respects they go rather wider in the offence they create, and would have fairly far-reaching consequences if the example were to be followed not only by York but my many other local authorities which have provisions of this kind in Measures which they are at present attempting to bring before the House.
The offence created by the Clause is somewhat wider than that in the Caravan Sites Act, 1968, because, as far as I can see, it applies not only to unoccupied land but to occupied land where the caravan is stationed with the consent of the occupier. In those circumstances, the planning Acts come into force, and we can leave it safely to the planning legislation to look after the case where a man has allowed a gypsy or itinerant to camp on his land without having first obtained a site licence or planning permission from the planning authorities.
My other criticism of the Clause—and this is not the main burden of my remarks—is that it states that a person who contravenes a notice, except in case of an emergency, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £20. No attempt has been made by the draftsmen to define what constitutes an emergency, or to give examples for the guidance of the courts. The equivalent section in the Caravan Sites Act, 1968, specifies certain emergencies, but if the Clause is left as it is it will be extremely difficult for lawyers to say what is or what is not an emergency.
I do not criticise the York Corporation for its failure to provide in its area authorised sites for gypsies because, as the hon. Gentleman has said and as the corporation has made clear in its memorandum, the corporation has taken steps towards providing a site for gypsies, and in this respect it is doing a great deal better than are the majority of local authorities in England and Wales. Lord Kennet gave the impression in another place on 13th February that rate of progress towards the provision of sites by local authorities was satisfactory. He said that gypsies are today twice as well-off as they were two years ago. In fact, the picture is very depressing. I congratulate York on its efforts voluntarily to provide a site, as so few local authorities are doing, in advance of the coming into force of all of the 1968 Act.
According to figures I received in a Written Answer today, only 402 pitches have been provided in the whole of England and Wales, as at 1st March, compared with 286 on the equivalent date last year. That is only 10 per cent. of the requirement. We need at least 4,000 pitches in England and Wales to cope with the present gypsy population. I calculate that if local authorities go on providing pitches at this pace it will be 31 years before there is a balance between pitches and gypsy families, leaving nothing to spare for mobility of population, or any increase there may be in the intervening period.
In spite of this very poor rate, the Ministers responsible have indicated that no Order will be made to bring Part II of the 1968 Act into force, and thus make mandatory the provision of sites by local authorities, while the present severe economic restrictions have to be continued. Therefore, as the corporation says, it is aiming to achieve the same object locally that that Part of my Act would have done nationally for the provision of sites by conferring powers on local authorities to deal with unauthorised encampments.
I notice, and I am grateful for the concession, that the corporation is willing to amend the Bill so that Clause 30 shall not have effect after Part II of my Act has been brought into force and the Minister has designated York as an area to which Section 10 of that Act applies. This at least indicates that the corpora-

tion concedes that it would be undesirable to have a large number of separate Clauses in local acts varying in their application all over the country and, at the same time, have on the Statute Book an Act expressly designed to secure uniformity of provision for the country as a whole. What would then happen would be that gypsies would find that perfectly harmless behaviour in Bradford would constitute an offence in, say, York, or that what was allowed in Nuneaton would be punishable by a £20 fine in Wolverhampton.
This is exactly the situation we are facing now and why we should be well advised to pay close attention to this Bill and other Bills promoted by local authorities coming on to the Floor of the House. We shall be faced with the same question because West Bromwich, Wolverhampton, Dudley, Warley and Worcestershire are all seeking powers analogous to those which York is seeking to control unauthorised gypsy encampments. Except for the first two of those authorities, the provisions are different in every case.
We hear a great deal about unnecessary legislation. York and those five other local authorities have gone to the trouble and expense of coming to this House for powers which would be conferred on them automatically if the Minister made an Order bringing Part II of the Caravan Sites Act into force, and if after that these authorities either could provide space for the gypsies residing in or resorting to their areas or they obtained exemption on one of the grounds specified in Section 6. Lord Kennet was clearly under the impression that only county boroughs such as York have a gypsy problem. He thus arrived at a very seriously under-estimated total for the unproductive spending which local authorities are having to undertake at the moment.
In York, I understand, £500 has been spent on fencing council land in Willow Street and Long Close area, while the administrative cost of dealing with unauthorised encampments has been in the region of £1,000. Expenditure has been incurred by counties of this kind. In Hertfordshire £1,405 has been spent—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not widen the debate. We are talking about the York Bill.

Mr. Lubbock: You will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that this problem is not confined to York, but York is dealing with it unilaterally by anticipating the coming into effect of the Caravan Sites Act, 1968. I think we can refer in passing to the fact that York is not the only authority, nor are county boroughs the only component of local authorities, suffering from this problem.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know the hon. Member's very keen interest in this question, but he must deal with it only so far as it affects York in the debate on this Bill.

Mr. Lubbock: Having made that point and drawn it to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary, who I hope is to reply to the debate, I move on to another point.
Lord Kennet said that if he was to be convinced that his estimates of the amount of unproductive spending by local authorities was wrong, that would put a totally different complexion on the problem. If York is spending £500 on fencing a small area and it has the administrative expenditure of £1,000 in a single financial year one can multiply that by all the county boroughs trying to bring forward legislation analagous to this Bill produced by York, I estimate that the total would be a quarter of a million pounds a year. While that is a long way short of the estimate given by the Gypsy Council, it is an order of magnitude greater than the figure quoted by Lord Kennet. I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will tell the York Corporation—

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): The hon. Gentleman has twice said, "When the Minister replies". This is not a Supply debate on gypsies. It is a Private Bill. I am not replying.

Mr. Lubbock: I correct that and say that when the Minister, as I hope he will, catches your eye later, Mr. Speaker, I hope that he will be able to inform York Corporation that Clause 30 is unnecessary because he has accepted the case that has been put, not only today but on every previous occasion, to show that the unproductive expenditure by local authorities is exceeding the amount of costs which would be incurred by them

in providing authorised sites, as I am glad to say that York is already doing, and that he will make the Order bringing Part II into effect shortly.
If the hon. Gentleman cannot say that, I must ask, as a second best, that at least the Government should resist the incorporation in Private Bills of Clauses such as the one I have referred to which would cause tremendous confusion and duplication on the Statute Book and which will be totally unnecessary when in a short time the Order to which I have referred is brought before the House.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) said that this was a general powers Bill and explained rather modestly that it included a number of miscellaneous Clauses. It is a very important Bill far beyond the two points he raised for the purpose of answering them—the tolls on river traffic and the sites for caravans. There are many Clauses which have no precedents. I hope that, if the House sees fit to send the Bill to Committee, those Clauses will be carefully considered.
I suppose that it is by a coincidence that the Second Reading of the Bill has come just one month after the publication of Lord Esher's plan for York. This is the first report of four studies commissioned by the Minister to consider the costs and problems of giving permanent protection to the historic centres of Britain's towns and cities. We understand that it will be followed by similar reports on Bath, Chichester and Chester.
I am tempted to look rather carefully at the Bill to see to what extent it falls in line with the objectives set out in Lord Esher's report. It is a pity that the debate occurs so soon after the publication of the report, because many Clauses touch on the recommendations of the report and I wonder whether they deal with these problems in the right way.
The hon. Member for York mentioned, in particular, Clauses 32 and 33. Clause 32 seeks to alter the general law with regard to out-door advertising and to give control to the corporation of advertisements inside premises which may be visible from outside. At present, this is foreign to the law, but the Minister may


well see fit to exercise his powers to put this type of provision into regulations.
I understand that such regulations are in course of preparation. If it is right that this sort of provision should apply to York, it may well be right that it should apply throughout the whole country. I personally would object to it. York seeks an exception to the general law, which I believe is at present under consideration, and perhaps it would be better to wait until regulations come before the House applicable to the whole country.
Clause 33 is quite unprecedented. It seeks to give the York Corporation power to control the painting of the exterior of buildings. One could perhaps joke about the Clause when one reads subsection (4), which describes the exterior over the painting of which the corporation will have control. It says:
… the expression 'exterior' in relation to premises means the external walls and roof and other external parts of those premises but docs not include windows, window frames, doors, door frames, guttering or tailpipes.
Apparently one may paint one's drainpipes in the most garish colours, but not the woodwork of the house, without the consent of the corporation. This sort of Clause drafted in that way needs very careful consideration against the background of Lord Esher's report.
There are other Clauses which similarly seek to control the exterior of properties, such as Clauses 29 and 43. Then there is that rather peculiar Clause 19 giving the corporation the right to close streets without any sort of compensation to those whose businesses may be damaged by such a closure, although under the Clause it can only be for 14 days.
All these seem to be dealing with the matter of the preservation of York as a great historic city in a piecemeal way, and I cannot help feeling that it would have been better if this Bill had come at a time when we could have considered Lord Esher's report fully. I do not know whether the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can say—if he intervenes in the debate—what is intended as a result of these four important reports, the first of which has been published and the other three of which we still await. Shall we have the opportunity of debating them

and of considering whether there is a need for a general reform of the law for cities such as York, Chichester, Chester and Bath? If the general law is to be altered, we ought to hesitate about altering it piecemeal just for one city at present.
Certainly we ought to look at this Bill—and I hope the Committee will so look at it if we commit the Bill—in the light of five objectives which Lord Esher set out in his plan for York. The first is that the commercial heart of York should remain alive and be able to compete on level terms with its neighbour cities, new and old. I understand that York attracts nearly 1 million visitors a year, although those actually working in the city number only about 1,000. Therefore, nationally it is important that we should see that our legislation about York is right, that it will preserve the commercial heart of York as well as the historic heart.
The second objective which Lord Esher set out is that the environment should be so improved by the elimination of decay, congestion and noise that the centre will become highly attractive as a place to live in for families, students, single persons and the retired. Again, in this legislation we ought to see that this objective of bringing more residents into the city is carried out. This, I gather, was one of the most important recommendations made by Lord Esher.
Lord Esher's third objective was that land uses which conflict with these purposes should be progressively removed from the walled city; and fourth, that the historic character of York should be so enhanced and the best of its buildings of all ages so secured that they become economically self-conserving. Fifth, Lord Esher says that within the walled city the erection of new buildings of anything but the highest architectural standards should cease.
That is the background to the Bill. In many respects, it will have to be studied carefully against that background to see that it contributes properly to the preservation of this historic city. I have commented that it deals with certain matters piecemeal. There is one Clause, for instance, which forbids the leading of animals through the city. I wonder about the drafting. That Clause would prevent one from leading one's dog through the


city, and I hope that it will be duly amended in Committee. I believe that the intention is directed against the driving of cattle through the city.
The Bill calls for careful attention, and it is one which the House should send to Committee for close examination. We shall wish to look at it carefully again when it emerges from Committee to see that it carries out the principles stated in Lord Esher's report.

9.36 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I agree with the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) that the Bill calls for careful examination and that it should go to Committee. I should advise the House to that effect.
I quite understand the annoyance expressed by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) that a certain situation regarding gypsies has arisen in York, and I acknowledge his rebuke about our not having been able to introduce the wider legislation so rightly associated with his name. I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to this debate and the implications of his comments in that connection.
Without going out of order, I can only allude to our position here, in that we are always in difficulty, being criticised, on the one hand, for urging people to take wider powers, do more work and spend more money, while, on the other, limiting the amount of money which they have. That is the difficulty, but with the rest of the hon. Gentleman's speech I agree. The points of weakness in Clause 30 to which he referred are points of weakness which my right hon. Friend would wish to draw to the Committee's attention, and the Clause will have to be examined carefully before it is included in the Bill in final form.
The hon. Member for Crosby asked about the Esher report—

Mr. Graham Page: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of caravans, I remind him that the promoters said in their Second Reading statement that they had allotted a site for caravans and they were awaiting the Minister's town planning approval. Will that come forward before the Bill or how long will it take?

Mr. MacColl: Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird.
I cannot express any view about any planning decision which is before my right hon. Friend. That is a matter which must be considered.

Mr. Graham Page: My question was about timing.

Mr. MacColl: shall make sure that the importance of the point is fully borne in mind.
The four reports by Lord Esher will be of great value, taken as a group and individually. They will be available as a useful guide and give a lot of information about the proper planning and future of these important towns. Not only the citizens of those towns but the rest of us will derive great advantage from the wisdom in them. Here is one of the difficulties in the timing of certain Clauses in the present Bill. We would all agree that York is showing great initiative in wanting to take the powers, and in showing this interest in its position as a great historic city.
I am not sure that all the Clauses are required; in that, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Some of them cut across powers already in planning Acts. Some are unprecedented, and before they became common form would have to be considered very carefully. There are quite a number that my right hon. Friend and other Ministers will be reporting on in Committee, either because they are unnecessary because of existing legislation, or because they will have the effect of allowing the local authority to evade Ministerial control, which has been placed on Ministers by Parliament in the general law. I must warn the House and the promoters that if the Committee saw fit to accept the recommendations of my right hon. Friends the Bill would look rather different when it came back on Report. But, after all, that is the job of a Committee.
I warmly commend the Bill, which should go to Committee as a very interesting piece of legislation.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to just one point. The hon. Member for


Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) regretted that the Bill seemed rather untimely in appearing about a month after the publication of the Esher Report. May I say to him and to my hon. Friend the Minister that the problems of conserving the historic core have been with the City of York for a very long time. They may have appeared to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to be pressing and urgent only in recent years, but we have been concerned about the preservation of a uniquely beautiful city for many years.
The provisions in the Bill, which may require some redrafting, and which the promoters are quite prepared to redraft, arise from the experience of York in trying to tackle some difficult problems which are perhaps unique to its locality. For example, there is the problem of the painting of buildings, which I do not think is widespread. Many Georgian buildings in the city have been defaced to some extent by the painting of the stonework as distinct from painting of the guttering, doors and windows. The Report has some approving words for the Red House, but in my view what was and could be a beautiful Georgian house has been completely spoilt by the application of the red paint which gives it its name. I hesitate to continue with examples, because one is the civic Mansion House itself.
This is a problem that faces us in historic towns, particularly York, in connection with which we need powers. The provisions in the Bill arise out of our experience and not so much out of the Esher report, which must in due course lead to legislation which seeks to make legislative principles to be applied to the preservation of all historic cities and towns. That will have to be considered and passed by the House.
It is a long way off, and in the meantime, the city of York, if it is not to deteriorate any further, needs these powers, and needs them very quickly.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

SUPPLY

[12TH ALLOTTED DAY]—again considered.

LUTON AIRPORT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: Since 7 o'clock we have been discussing the activities of local authorities. I am grateful for this opportunity to continue the trend—in this case, the activity of Luton Corporation, which operates an airport to the discomfort of some of those who live outside Luton's boundaries. The airport has grown from what was initially a flying field constructed in the late 1930s and then used by flying clubs for Gypsy Moths and that type of aircraft, but it is only really in recent years that it has developed with the provision of facilities for charter companies catering mainly for package tours.
The rapid rate of growth of the traffic is reflected in the figures. Whereas in 1963 about 133,000 passengers passed through the airport, by 1967 the figure had reached 425,698. I believe that, in 1968, the figure was close to 1 million and that the consultative committee has been informed that it is expected to increase by 50 per cent. further this year. The two major operators which run these tours expect a general growth of aircraft movements of 40 per cent. increase per annum, which is formidable prospect.
The biggest use comes in the summer holiday season, involving a very fast growing use of twin-jet aircraft. Many of the complaints I have received emanate from the beginning of the use of twin jets. Whereas, in summer last year, there were 1,831 jet take-offs from Luton it is estimated that this summer there will be 5,300—nearly a threefold increase.
The airport itself is a tongue of land which protrudes into Hertfordshire and you will not be surprised, Mr. Speaker, to see another Hertfordshire Member here in the person of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason), because most of the take-offs


and landing approaches cover Hertfordshire rather than Bedfordshire, although parts of South Bedfordshire are affected.
Night take-offs, which are a particular intrusion into people's privacy, peace and quiet, are also to be trebled this year. This is perhaps causing even more concern than even the daytime flights. The traffic in 1969 is, I understand, expected to reach the limit of the capacity of the terminal buildings. But what is worrying the people who are affected by these flights is that the limit of capacity of the runway has not nearly been reached as yet, so that there is the possibility of future growth without even providing additional runways.
The fears of people affected in the area have led to the formation of the Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise—known as "Ladacan". It has been informed, I understand, that the present facilities at the airport could allow 32 aircraft movements per hour, which is a considerable number. This apparently is not thought to be sufficient by Luton Corporation, which has engaged Sir Frederick Snow, at a fee, I believe, of £15,000, to explore and advise on the possible development of the airport. There is the possibility of a new 10,000 feet runway which would enable the traffic to increase to 60 full movements per hour, which is even more horrifying to contemplate. So it is little wonder that there is such widespread concern in the areas affected.
I wrote to the Minister of State's predecessor in July, 1967, with complaints from constituents, and was told in a letter dated 13th August, 1967:
I must explain that as regards aerodromes which are not owned by the Board of Trade or the British Airports Authority, we have no powers to impose restrictions on aircraft in flight in order to protect amenities in the vicinity of the aerodromes.
On learning this, I wrote to the then Town Clerk of Luton—I think that he has become a director of one of the airline operating companies, although I am not certain—but his reply was not particularly sympathetic. He passed on what I regarded as somewhat arrogant observations from the airport authority which merely said that there was no evidence to support the allegations of low flying. This was at a time when there were training flights for pilots learning to use twin jet aircraft at the airport.
On 20th September, 1968, I wrote to the Minister of State about reviewing the routes. He replied:
They—
the Luton Airport authorities—
have sent us their proposals for comment and these are now being considered. The decision is, however, a matter for the airport authority alone".
This airport is not controlled in any way by the Board of Trade and, therefore, air traffic may grow willy nilly. Who controls the growth of air traffic at Luton?
It is interesting to note that a Press release from Hertfordshire County Council in November, 1968, dealing with representations made by the council to the Luton Borough Corporation about the possible expansion of the airport and the intensification of the use of existing facilities, said:
For the Borough Council, it was pointed out that the Airport is licensed for 24 hours per day and that their control over the growth of air traffic to and from the airport was very limited, although they were endeavouring to persuade airline operators to reduce aircraft movement at night.
The Board of Trade is not in control and apparently the borough council has very limited control of aircraft movement. Are we seriously expected to believe that the growth and pattern of air traffic are entirely in the control of the operators in a case like this, that they have to be persuaded by Luton Corporation not to make life hell at night for the 585,000 people who live within a nine-mile radius of the airport, that no one can say them nay?
Furthermore, as Luton is a county borough, it is the planning authority in its own area. This means that it can develop the airport within its own boundaries as much as it wishes without reference to any other authority. I understand that major developments have to be referred to the Minister of Housing and Local Government but he does not have aviation experts in his Department and is probably not concerned with air traffic routes or anything of that sort. Most of the developments proposed for the next four or five years, which are to cost, I understand, some £3 million, are regarded as of a minor nature. This is an anachronistic situation.
Obviously, most planning decisions taken by a county borough would affect


merely the ratepayers within the borough, and they have a say in what their council does, or hope to have, and can at least put out the council if they do not like what it does. But planning decisions affecting an airport concern large numbers of people living well outside the boundaries of the borough, people who are not represented on the council and who have no say in it. They have no remedy. Not only in Luton but in towns like St. Albans, Hemel Hempstead, Letchworth, Redbourn, Welwyn, Harpenden, Stevenage, Hitchin, Dunstable, Welwyn Garden City and many small and attractive villages, people will be greatly affected by this growth of traffic
There is a rumour that the abolition of the special status of county boroughs is to be recommended by the Royal Commission on Local Government, and that seems good reason in itself for holding up further development of the airport until the Commission's recommendations are known. There is also the Edward Committee of inquiry into air transport and the Roskill Commission on the third London airport. Is it sensible to allow Luton Airport to grow and attract more and more traffic regardless of the recommendations which these bodies may ultimately make?
Furthermore, if Nuthampstead, for instance, in East Hertfordshire, were selected finally as the site for the third London airport, those who live in North Hertfordshire would find themselves flanked by two major airports, because if Luton is allowed to grow, as it is growing, without any check, it will become a major airport in the six years or so that we can expect to pass before the third London airport is built.
I wonder whether the Minister of State has considered the implications of the present position. There is not only the question of destruction of amenity over a very large area. There is also the question of safety. It might have been safe enough to have a flying field with a few light aircraft flying around only two miles from the town hall in the late 1930s, but is it sensible and safe to have a busy jet airport, with international flights, with a runway only two miles from the town hall in a town of 150,000 people?
The Vauxhall motor works are close at hand with extensive paint shops at the west end of the runway. They employ 20,000 people. An HS125 jet aircraft crashed there in September, 1967. It was only good fortune that the works were closed at the time and, therefore, the casualties were merely the two in the aircraft, whereas there might have been thousands more had the paint shop, for instance, been hit and caught alight. There are secondary schools in the area, children's homes and old people's homes and many other places which one would expect to want to be in safe areas.
I suggest that only a lunatic would put a jet airport in such a situation if he were starting from scratch. It really seems absurd that, merely because there was this small flying field there in the late 1930s, we should now have this big airport growing before our eyes.
Do we have to accept the view of the Luton Corporation that, since the airport is there, it must simply be allowed to grow and to hell with the consequences? A consultative committee has been formed in advance of the legislation passed by Parliament, but, of course, it has no power to prevent the growth of traffic at the airport. Indeed, its members are already feeling depressed at the cavalier fashion in which they seem to be treated by the corporation.
I have a statement made by a member of that committee representing Harpenden Urban District Council, but I dare say that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, might wish to quote from it. One thing which is surprising, however, is that he states:
The Luton Corporation say that they are proposing certain definite routes to the Board of Trade, but they did not produce any details; also they insisted that they have no responsibility after the aircraft leave the airport boundary for where they fly.
It is an absurd situation if the Board of Trade, Luton Corporation and everybody say that they have no control over where these aircraft fly. It seems to me that we cannot allow this airport, with its traffic, to grow outside the context of the plans which are being made for air traffic in the South-East. I hope that the Minister will intervene in the interests of the hundreds of thousands of people whose lives can be so greatly affected


by the piecemeal and uncontrolled growth of this airport.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: In support of some of the things that the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) has said, I should like to say that the problems of this airport are not confined to the people who live outside Luton. My constituency is probably evenly divided, with about half of my electorate in Luton, in the county borough, and half outside. These days I receive a steady number of complaints about the airport which are equally divided between those who live in the county borough and those who live outside.
As the hon. Member for St. Albans has rightly said, looking back into the late 1930s, and even into the immediate post-war period, there was no real problem associated with this airport.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

Mr. Roberts: The problem has reached considerable proportions only over the last two or three years, because the traffic at this airport has about trebled over this period. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, it is contemplated that next year there will be about 5,300 summer jet flights.
The matter reached what I regarded as acute proportions when this hare-brained scheme was put forward last year that, in addition to the existing 7,000 ft. runway, another 10,000 foot runway should be built which would be capable of taking 60 movements an hour.
The worst thing I felt about this was the apparent lack of consultation with the Board of Trade before this inquiry was set up. When I wrote to the then Minister of State, he indicated that there had been no direct consultation with him before this inquiry was initiated. I should like 1o emphasise the need for far greater consultation and far greater knowledge of what goes on by the Board of Trade.
The hon. Member for St. Albans has referred to the Luton Airport Consultative Committee. Many people have felt that the Committee has not been sufficiently representative because many local bodies which wish to have a say on the committee have not been represented. I also believe that those which are represented have felt up to now that not sufficient weight has been given to their views.
I have yet another letter from some body within Luton which states that the people of Luton feel that they are not sufficiently consulted. It is unfortunately true that on this matter the two major political parties have long-established attitudes—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is drifting back to the point that he made some time ago in the House. He is beginning to debate the policies of Luton Council.

Mr. Roberts: In this case they were still thinking—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must debate on the airport something for which the Minister has Ministerial responsibility. In this case it is the Minister of State for the Board of Trade.

Mr. Roberts: There is a feeling among the people of Luton that they would like greater opportunities for expressing their views on this issue.
I should like the Minister to provide from the Board of Trade much more positive rather than negative consultation. I have no doubt that the Board of Trade has provided the answers whenever Luton has posed the questions. The hon. Member for St. Albans has referred to the problems in Hertfordshire over Nuthampstead and growth at Luton. He could imagine the problems of South Bedfordshire if Cubington was chosen as the third London Airport.
I want to ask my hon. Friend for two assurances. Will he say that under no circumstances will the Board of Trade countenance the type of enormous development at Luton which has been envisaged by the council? Even if he is not prepared to do this, I hope that he will at least make it clear that the Board of Trade will insist on much closer control over traffic movements from Luton, and also that these movements be kept


within such limits that they do not affect the airports in the area.
If my hon. Friend will give the House some of these assurances the debate will have served its purpose.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. James Allason: I wish to declare an interest, as one of the many residents in my constituency who have to suffer from the shocking noise from aircraft taking off from Luton Airport. At Tring, 15 miles away, the noise is deafening. At Markyate, where I have my cottage—four miles from the airport—the noise is appalling when jet aircraft are directly overhead. On Saturday, when I was pruning my roses, an aircraft passed about half a mile to the north of Markyate and the noise was acceptable. Immediately afterwards a jet aircraft passed directly overhead and the noise was indescribably bad. This is what we are used to getting day after day and night after night.
During the proceedings on the Civil Aviation Bill, last summer, I described the situation in Harpenden, with aircraft making their hideous noise. As a result of that Measure we are to have a consultative committee at Luton, but the procedure has not yet been completed. In consequence, we have only an interim consultative committee. Nevertheless, one would expect that that committee would be able to operate as a consultative committee under the Act when the procedure is completed.
So far, Tring has been refused direct representation on that committee. I should like to know the definition of "neighbouring local authority" is in the Act, because although Tring is only 15 miles away it is apparently not regarded as a neighbouring authority. Although the noise is thoroughly unpleasant, Tring is not to be consulted. The town is represented by a person who represents all the urban districts in Hertfordshire. He is an extremely able man, but he cannot possibly represent everyone. It would be very much better if every authority concerned were represented.
That gentleman was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew), and I want to quote another point raised in his report. He says:

It is regrettable to have to report that it is unlikely that the Consultative Committee will, as it is at present operating, have any significant effect in controlling the way in which the expansion of air traffic from Luton airport will go on, or in halting the further deterioration of the situation in the surrounding areas of Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire, unless the Luton Corporation itself radically changes its present attitude. The Corporation appears to have little regard for the views of the Consultative Committee as has been particularly demonstrated regarding plans for night flying in 1969.
The consultative committee suggested to the corporation that its plans should be drastically revised, in view of the strong increase to which my hon. Friend referred, and was firmly snubbed.
Aircraft noise has become intolerable to those living nearby. Therefore, routing is vitally important yet as my hon. Friend said, virtually nothing is being done. The Board of Trade, which is supposed to think of routing, normally says that it is not a matter for the Department, but for the airport directors, who say that it is a matter for the Board of Trade. Aircraft should not be routed over towns; this is essential.
I have heard from the Minister that training need not be done at busy airports where there is considerable inconvenience from noise—it should be done at remote airfields—but this news has not got through to Luton, which continues to do training normally over the roofs of Harpenden. The country should wake up to the fact that aircraft noise is becoming intolerable. If the operational requirements of the third London airport require flying over the green fields of England, life would become appalling. The dangers from jet aircraft noise will make the country a hell on earth unless the Minister controls it.

10.13 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. William Rodgers): When I assumed my present responsibilities last summer, I was immediately made aware that the problem of noise from Luton Airport was something with which I would deal. One of the first things I did was to visit the airport and make clear the considerable concern outside Luton about the noise problem and the apprehension about the corporation's reported plans for a new runway. I also met representatives of "Ladacan" and expressed to them my concern that the growth of aircraft noise


should cause such upset and distress to increasing numbers of people.
I am, therefore, not surprised that the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) should have raised this matter. I am glad to be able to make clear where we stand and what our powers are. The hon. Member has been assiduous in telling me of his concern, as have the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts). My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) has made clear to me her problem. In other words, this problem is of common concern throughout the countryside around Luton.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) wished to be here for the debate. He, too, has put me under consistent pressure about the situation at Luton. He, too, has been concerned with the need for consultation and concerned that the new machinery which has been set up and any further machinery should be genuinely representative of all the interests in the locality.
I have much sympathy with all these complaints. We all know from experience how harrowing aircraft noise can be, at least for some people. What we have to do, taking a larger view, is to ensure that the inevitable growth of air transport and of flying generally does not place an increased and unreasonable burden on the people. In that respect, I echo the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead.
The story of Luton has been set out by the hon. Member for St. Albans. There has been very rapid growth indeed since 1960—more rapid, I think, than anywhere else in the United Kingdom—based very largely on the growth of inclusive tours. In fact, 20 per cent. of all inclusive tour traffic to and from Britain goes out of Luton, which is a high percentage.
Turning to the question of the economics of aerodrome operation, Luton is now breaking even and from the point of view of the corporation it is a very successful municipal enterprise. But the very success of the corporation—and we must give the corporation credit for what it has achieved in the area, whatever view we may take about the consequences—has created the further problems, and

I ought to make it clear that as the responsibility for the airport is Luton's, the Board of Trade and other Government Departments have very limited powers indeed. It was a policy decision of the previous Government, with which I would not necessarily quarrel, to ensure that municipal airports had a chance to develop and in fact to pass over to municipalities, where they wished to take an airport on, those which were previously under the control of the Board of Trade.
But inevitably this creates problems. We cannot exceed our powers nor can we insist on controls for which there is no provision in legislation. Broadly speaking, as I understand, when my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu), said that we have no powers he was to a large extent speaking the truth, and it would be for Parliament to change that situation if it wished. In the meantime, although the Board of Trade can give a great deal of advice and help, ultimately decisions concerning the future of this municipal airport are for Luton to take. We play our part in planning matters, in sanctioning loans, in licensing the aerodrome and in providing the kind of technical assistance and advice which the Board offers to all such aerodrome owners, but the Government's powers to regulate activities at the aerodrome are limited. I do not wish to give the impression that the Board of Trade is in a position to compel Luton to change its policies.

Mr. Goodhew: Will the hon. Member deal with the question whether Luton Corporation has power to control the direction of the traffic? It says that it has not.

Mr. Rodgers: I hope that I shall do so. It is certainly true that Luton has complete control of air traffic movement through the airport, and, as I shall show, Luton is in a position to lay down and have the Board of Trade confirm and publish regulations affecting routes at landing and take-off. Luton has these powers and, of course, it has the powers of monitoring them.

Mr. Allason: rose—

Mr. Rodgers: I cannot give way again, or I shall not answer all the questions which have been asked.
I will deal next with the concern about possible major extensions at the airport. Looking to the future, Luton has been forced to consider a situation which will arise when the requirements of operators exceed the capacity of the present runway and the terminal building complex.
On this, it has called in expert advice, and I emphasise that the study to which reference has been made has been commissioned but is not yet complete. Far from there being the risk that decisions are now in process of being made without due consultation, Luton's neighbours should know that the borough still awaits the data upon which any policies will need to be based.
Even with the consultants' recommendations before it, the borough has many other factors to take into account before reaching the point of seeking planning permission for any major developments. It will have to take note of the short list of aerodromes recently published by the Roskill Commission, with the sort of implications mentioned this evening. In fact, no specific expansion could be undertaken without its place in the general plan for the region being studied, and the close relationship which exists between the borough and the Board of Trade in a consultative way ensures that all aspects of forward planning are taken into account.
In addition, in so far as new land might be required for any development of the airport involving modification, for example, of the county planning map, it would be necessary to get planning permission. Any objector would have every opportunity to make his views known and have his case weighed against the merits of the project. Any major development would be correspondingly costly, and the borough would probably have to borrow to finance it. For such loans, it would need the sanction of the Minister of Housing and Local Government who, in turn, could rely on the sponsorship of the scheme by the Board of Trade to guide him.
I turn now to the immediate and present problem of noise abatement measures for the airport with its growing prosperity and volume of traffic. Luton has set up a consultative committee for its airport in advance of a decision by us under the powers that we

have taken in the Civil Aviation Act. Despite the criticisms mentioned this evening, I hope that the consultative committee will be a suitable forum not only for examining the forward plans which I have mentioned, because I see no reason why they should not be fully and frankly discussed with the committee, with a plain declaration of intention at the right time. In addition, the consultative committee will be able to consider matters of general and current interest affecting Luton's neighbours.
I do not think that I need bother hon. Members with the precise composition of the committee, because it is familiar to those who have shown an interest. It includes, for example, apart from representatives of local authorities, a representative of Ladacan. In addition, an airline representative has recently been added, and I understand that it is likely that an invitation will be sent to the Luton Chamber of Commerce to appoint a representative. It is not for me to say whether there may be scope for further additions, but I hope very much that the committee will seek to satisfy all genuine demands for consultation from the local communities as a whole, official and unofficial, given the limitations on size in order to be effective. I want to see genuine consultation. It is a matter for Luton, but I am sure that it will judge that it is in its own best interests.
With regard to procedures, about which the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead was asking, new requirements were published last week in a document which is called a "Notam". This sets out new procedures for the routing of aircraft after take-off, a requirement for progressively decreasing noise-levels on the ground after a safe height for power cut-back has been reached, landing procedures aimed at keeping aircraft as high as possible for as long as possible, and restrictions on night training circuits and Sunday training circuits for jet aircraft. I will let all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate and others who are interested have copies of the document. It is a very interesting one.
The first requirement is:
Every operator of aircraft using the airport shall ensure at all times that aircraft are operating in a manner calculated to cause the least disturbance practicable in areas surrounding the airport.


The second provision, about minimum noise routings, says that the routings laid down in the document.
… shall apply to all aircraft taking off from Luton Airport in accordance with the air traffic control clearance so specified, unless air traffic control otherwise instructs …
Thirdly, there is a reference to the need for power reduction. It says that every jet aircraft shall maintain a rate of climb of at least 500 feet per minute on power settings which will ensure progressively decreasing noise levels at a point on the ground under the flight path.
Fourthly, inbound aircraft shall maintain as high an altitude as possible, and a minimum of at least 3,000 feet while flying over any congested area of a city, town or settlement. These minimum noise procedures are formidable, and I hope that they will make a significant difference to the problem of noise in the surrounding areas.
Finally, on this point, I should say that Luton will shortly be setting up four monitoring points—two on either side of the runway—to check noise levels of arriving and departing aircraft. This is intended to be a fully automatic system of a type currently being installed at Heathrow, and I understand that some of the equipment is already on order.
This all shows that the Luton authorities are prepared to take steps to alleviate the noise problem. I certainly welcome this attitude, and I am sure that it will do something to ease the anxieties expressed in this debate. But, having said that, I must make it clear that unless civil aviation—which serves an increasingly wide section of the community either directly or indirectly—is checked in its expansion, there is bound to be growing inconvenience to many people living close to airports until such a time as quieter aircraft are introduced into service.
That time is not as far off as is sometimes supposed, and, had I the time now, I would explain the lead which Britain—in conjunction with, in particular the United States and France—has given in laying down minimum standards for international operation, and also in putting a great deal of money into research and development on less noisy aircraft. What I say is not a counsel of despair, but only a recognition of reality. The growth of private road transport, too, has created real problems of noise and amenity.
For the reasons I have given, there are special problems at Luton. I sometimes feel that when we have a consortium controlling an airport it is easier to get some consensus of where a balance may be struck. In this case, a single borough is responsible for the airport and has a proper interest in its growth and in the contribution it can make to the growth of our transport generally. Those outside find it more difficult to identify their interests with the growth of transport, yet feel themselves peculiarly the victims of the noise that has been caused.
I fully recognise the discomfort, the irritation and the upset. As I have tried to show, the ultimate responsibility for the necessary decisions is Luton's, but we are doing all in our power to safeguard amenity and the peace of our countryside and of the people who live there, and of the people who live in towns and urban communities as well. I am sure that our consultations with Luton, and all that has been said tonight, will help to emphasise, if it needs emphasising, the need to accommodate the growth of our traffic at Luton, however important to the prosperity of Britain, to the need also to preserve much that is fine and much which the people love and enjoy.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.